tihvavy  of  ^he  t:heolo0ical  Seminar;? 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


BX  7250  .B6  1899 

Boardman,  George  Nye,  1825- 

1915. 
A  history  of  New  England 

theology 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/historyofnewenOOboar 


A  HISTORY 


-■     16  1932 


OP 


NEW    ENGLAND 
THEOLOGY 


BY 


GEORGE  NYE  BOARDMAN, 

PROFESSOR    EMERITUS    OF    SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY    IN 
CHICAGO    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY. 


New  York  : 
A.  D.  F.  RANDOLPH  COMPANY 

1899 


Copyright,  1899,  by 
A.  D.  F.  Randolph  Company. 


Compositinii  and  Pressworlc  by 

M.,  W.  &  C.  Pennypacker, 

Asbury  Park,  N.  J. 


PREFACE. 


The  present  work  had  its  origin  in  a  series  of 
lectures  prepared  for  an  elective  course  in  Chicago 
Theological  Seminary.  The  division  into  lectures, 
however,  has  not  been  retained  because  a  treatment 
more  instructive  and  better  proportioned  to  the  im- 
portance of  the  several  topics,  it  is  thought,  may  be 
secured  by  presenting  the  subject  in  a  narrative 
form.  The  aim  of  the  present  work  is  to  trace  the 
^'  New  Divinity/'  formerly  so  called,  in  its  develop- 
ment through  the  century  between  1730  and  1830, 
through  its  Berkshire  and  Hopkinsian  eras,  to  its 
final  form  as  New  England  Theology. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  the  dates  of  the 
various  changes — sometimes  spoken  of  as  improve- 
ments— which  took  place  in  the  course  of  this  devel- 
opment, but  its  beginning  and  end  may  be  pretty 
definitely  fixed.  That  which  was  "new''  began  w^ith 
the  settlement  of  Edwards  at  Northampton,  and  noth- 
ing has  been  added  since  the  close  of  the  New 
Haven  discussions,  that  is,  since  about  1830.  The 
Arminianism  of  Edwards'  day  provoked  the  initial 
movement.  The  discussion  then  awakened,  while  it 
called   forth  the  ablest  of  all  the  theological   essays 


2  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

produced  in  America,  "  Edwards  on  the  Will,"  has 
not  yet  really  subsided,  though  there  is  no  hope  that 
ncAv  argiunents  will  be  adduced  in  the  case.  Nearly 
contemporaneous  was  the  movement  against  Pelagian- 
ism.  The  discussion  in  this  case  may  be  said  to  have 
reached  a  conclusion,  since  the  parties  passed  from 
debate  to  an  actual  separation,  in  the  rupture  between 
the  Unitarians  and  the  Orthodox.  The  theological 
agitation  thus  begun,  led  to  a  contest  among  the  Cal- 
vinists  themselves,  and  opened  the  way  for  a  vigo- 
rous pamphleteering  in  which  Hopkinsianism  brought 
forward  its  sharpest  metaphysical  distinctions.  These 
discussions  were  far-reaching  and  pervasive  in  their 
influence.  They  excited  a  popular  interest  in  relig- 
ious and  moral  questions,  sharpened  the  intellectual 
vision  of  the  people,  and  became  an  educative  force 
in  many  parishes  of  the  country.  While  they  did  not 
produce  harmony  of  sentiment,  for  peace  came  rather 
from  weariness  than  conviction,  they  evinced  highly 
intellectual  tendencies  among  the  people,  and  were 
very  generally  looked  upon  as  indicative  of  their  lead- 
ing traits  of  character.  There  can,  therefore,  hardly 
be  a  passage  of  American  history  more  worthy  of 
study  than  that  before  us.  It  brings  to  view  the  in- 
ner thinking  and  serious  convictions  of  some  of  the 
best  minds  the  country  has  produced,  it  has  to  do 
with  the  most  profound  and  most  formative  religious 
agitations  through  which  the  country  has  passed,  and 
it  runs  parallel  with  the  most  important  political 
period  of  American  life. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  centuries    of  New 
England  history  are  very  distinctly  marked  by  tlieo- 


PKEFACE  3 

logical  tendencies.  Puritanism  continued  as  a  pre- 
vailing force  from  1630  to  1730,  though  it  confessed 
its  weakness  as  early  as  the  middle  of  that  period, 
by  resorting  to  the  half-way  covenant.  IS'ew  England 
theology,  as  a  development,  began  and  finished  its 
career  in  the  succeeding  one  hundred  years.  Some 
of  its  ablest  supporters  have  appeared  since  that 
period,  but  nothing  new  has  been  added.  We  have 
passed  but  two-thirds  of  the  third  century,  yet  it  has 
long  been  clear  that  the  theologizing  temper  is  still 
active,  and  that  the  more  recent  movements  have  been 
away  from  Hopkinsianism.  Perfectionism,  which 
appeared  early  after  1830,  was  a  clear,  but  not  very 
skilfully  sustained,  protest  against  the  then  current 
Calvinism.  A  still  more  vehement  protest  against  it 
is  to  be  found  in  Bushnellism,  which  soon  followed, 
a  scheme  which  has  had  a  decided  influence  upon 
some  leading  minds.  A  more  recent  theology  having 
affiliations  with  evolution  now  demands  a  hearing. 
AVhat  it  will  be  when  the  remaining  third  of  our 
theological  century  closes  is  a  matter  of  conjecture. 
Our  attention  is  confined  to  the  middle  period,  except 
as  other  periods  require  incidental  notice. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  Eev.  Charles  P.  Gillett, 
librarian  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  for  the  aid 
he  has  rendered  in  giving  me  access  to  historical 
works,  some  of  them  rare,  which  are  under  his  charge; 
also  to  Professor  Williston  Walker,  D.D.,  of  Hartford 
Theological  Seminary,  for  helpful  suggestions,  and  for 
access  to  his  notable  collection  of  works  on  New 
England  history. 


CONTENTS. 

Preface     3 

CHAPTER  I. 

Peelimixary ,      9 

I. 

SUMMARY  statement          9 

II. 

RELIGIOUS  CONDITION  OF  NEW  ENGLAND  IN   1730      15 

1.  The  Lax  State  of  Morals  \Q 

2.  Laxity  in  Christian  Doctrine  22 

III. 

THE   OCCASION  OF    THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF    NEW 

ENGLAND  THEOLOGY 32 

CHAPTER  11. 

Edwardeanism  in  New  England  Theology    46 

I. 

PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY 49 

1.  Duty  of  Immediate  Effort  in  Seeking  Salvation         49 

2.  Edwards'  View  of  Church  Membership  51 


6  CONTENTS. 

II. 

METAPHYSICS         53 

1.  Theism  64 

2.  Virtue  55 

III. 

DOGMATIC  THEOLOGY          61 

1.  The  Will  61 

2.  Original   Sin  65 

CHAPTER  III. 

DocTKiNEs   Prominently  Discussed  in  New 

England  Theology 71 

I. 

the  divine  permission  of  sin 78 

II. 

THE  NEW   ENGLAND   DOCTRINE  OF  SIN   ...  91 

1.  Sin  as  Transgression,  91 

2.  Sin  as  Selfishness  93 

3.  Sin  as  an  Inherent  Tendency  95 
Axioms  Concerning  Sin  98 
Accepted  Facts  Kelating  to  Sin  100 
Original  Sin  102 
The  Exercise  and  Taste  Schemes  105 
Emmonsism  108 

III. 

RESPONSIBILITY 112 

Dr.  vSmalley's  Exposition  of  Kesponsibility  113 

Dr.  Smalley  and  Governor  Treadwell  119 

Influence  of  New  England  Theology  in  Great  Britain  127 


CONTENTS.  7 

rv. 

VIRTUE 130 

Edwards'  View  132 

Hopkms'  View  133 

The  Benevolence  Theory  Utilitarian  140 

The  Andover  Theory  144 

Extreme  Inference  from  Disinterested  Benevolence  146 
V. 

JUSTIFICATION 149 

CHAPTER  ly. 

HoPKiNSiAN  Peculiarities 169 

I. 

the     conflict     of     new     ENGLAND     THEOLOGY 

WITH  MODERATE  CALVINISM 171 

Order  of  Events  in  the  Debate  176 

Doctrine  of  the  Moderate  Calvinists  179 

Psychology  of  the  Moderate  Calvinists  182 

Hemmenway's  Argument  in  Favor  of  the  Use  of  Means  186 

Psychology  of  the  Hopkinsians  191 

Hopkinsian  Reply  to  Moderate  Calvinists  195 

II. 

PRACTICAL   QUESTIONS          205 

III. 
HOPKINSIANISM     AS     A     PRACTICAL    SCHEME    OF 

DOCTRINE 213 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Atonement 221 

The  Treatise  of  William  Pynchon  221 

Brief  Statement  of  the  Satisfaction  Theory  225 


8  CONTENTS. 

Objections  to  Satisfaction  Theory,  Genesis  of  that  of 

New  England  227 
I. 

THE  NEW  ENGLAND  THEORY   ......  230 

Estimate  of  the  New  England  Theory  237 
II. 

THE   MORAL   INFLUENCE  THEORY  OF  THE  ATONE- 
MENT            .....  242 

Dr.  Bushnell's  Criticism  of  Former  Theories  242 

The  Theory  Advocated  by  Bushnell  244 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Later  Discussions— New  Haven  Theology  249 

Discussions  Eising  from  Differences  of  the  Orthodox 

and  the  Unitarians  250 

Main  Events  in  the  New  Haven  Discussion  254 

The  Points  at  Issue  in  the  New  Haven  Theology  259 

Dr.  Woods'  Criticism  of  Dr.  Taylor  264 

Dr.  Taylor's  View  of  Regeneration  268 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Oberlin  Theology 275 

The  Institution  at  Oberlin  275 

Christian  Perfection  276 

Criticisms  of  Oberlin  Perfectionism  282 

Divergences  from  New  England  Theology  287 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Is  THE  Later  Theology  Edwardean?      .  293 

The  Present  New  Theology  293 

Christo-centric  Theology  296 

Edwards'  Relations  to  After  Times  299 


CHAPTER    I. 

Preliminary. 
I. 

SUMMARY  STATEMENT. 

The  term  New  England  Theology  has  long  been 
in  familiar  use.  It  designates  a  scheme  of  theology 
which  was  developed  in  this  country  between  1730 
and  1830;  attracting  attention,  brought  under  discus- 
sion, acquiring  a  fuller  and  fuller  statement  from 
time  to  time,  throughout  that  century.  The  move- 
ment was  begun  without  a  surmise  of  the  path  to  be 
traversed,  or  of  the  result  to  be  reached.  The  initial 
purpose  was  simply  resistance  to  influences  which,  it 
was  feared,  were  leading  many  astray  from  the  truths 
of  the  gospel;  but  one  treatise  led  to  another,  cri- 
tiques led  to  defences  of  doctrines  for  the  truth's 
sake,  till  finally  a  large  body  of  theological  literature 
came  into  existence.  It  was  probably  about  the  year 
1760,  that  the  people  became  aware  that  a  new  sys- 
tem of  divinity  had  been  devised  among  them.  The 
names  at  first  applied  to  it  were  mildly  derisive, 
"New  Light,"  "New  Divinity,'' " Berkshire  Divinity,'' 
but   its    advocates   were    not   confined    to    Berkshire 


10  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

County,  nor  to  Massachusetts,  and  after  a  few  years, 
"new  divinity"  ceased  to  be  a  term  of  reproach. 
The  impelling  force  which  prompted  and  sustained 
the  debate,  was  the  ever  impending  question,  ^^How 
shall  man's  dependence  and  responsibility  be  recon- 
ciled?" Around  whatever  theories  of  Arminianism 
and  Calvinism  the  contest  may  have  raged,  whatever 
discriminations  concerning  ability  and  necessity  may 
have  been  made,  whatever  definitions  of  freedom  and 
bondage  may  have  been  devised,  still  the  thing  which 
men  desired  to  know  was,  how  a  will  under  the  con- 
trol of  evil,  can  be  required  to  prefer  the  good. 
From  this  centre  the  debate  ran  out,  it  is  true,  in 
many  directions,  and  the  topic  of  fundamental  interest 
was  sometimes  lost  sight  of. 

While  we  consider  the  various  phases  which  this 
scheme  of  thought  assumed,  we  should  bear  in  mind 
that  there  is  an  elementary  unity  underlying  them 
all.  These  phases,  one  being  prominent  at  one  time, 
another  at  another,  are  many,  but  there  are  four 
which  have  special  designations,  and  which  bring  to 
view  the  most  strenuously  contested  points  that  have 
come  under  discussion.  These  are  Edwardeanism, 
Hopkinsianism,  Emmonsism  and  Taylorism.  The 
second  and  fourth  being  the  most  marked.  Edwards 
was  engaged  in  resisting  the  current  of  liberal  doctrine 
from  1730,  though  his  strictly  controversial  works 
were  not  published  till  1754  and  1758.  His  name 
fitly  designates  the  period  from  1730  to  1760.  It 
was  not  popularly  applied  in  this  way  till  after  his 
death.  The  Hopkinsian  period  extended  from  about 
1760  to  the  Eevolutionary  War,  as  a  period  of  de- 


SUMMARY  STATEMENT.  H 

bate;  the  epithet  is  still  in  use.  There  was  inter- 
mission of  theological  discussion  during  the  struggle 
for  national  independence.  After  the  war  the  doc- 
trine of  universal  salvation  and  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement  excited  public  interest,  but  the  theo- 
logical developments  of  that  portion  of  the  century 
have  acquired  no  distinctive  title.  Emmonsism  was 
not  a  product  of  discussion  by  parties  arrayed  against 
each  other.  It  designates  views  Hopkinsian  in  spirit, 
often  suggested  by  the  Hopkinsian  discussions,  but 
most  clearly  announced  by  Emmons,  especially  in 
sermons  that  excited  much  attention  about  the  year 
1810.  Taylorism  is  a  term  associated  with  theological 
controversies  that  took  place  in  1829  and  1830. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that,  in  these  several  move- 
ments, one  phase  of  doctrine  gave  way  to  another. 
Edwardeanism  remained,  for  the  most  part,  a  perma- 
nent element  in  New  England  theology.  Some  of 
the  doctrines  of  Hopkinsianism  likewise  received  gen- 
eral approbation,  but  some  of  them  were  strongly 
opposed  by  persons  who  still  adhered  to  what  was 
known  as  the  New  Divinity.  Emmonsism  is  not  an 
essential  part  of  this  scheme  of  doctrine  so  much  as 
it  is  a  method  of  apprehending  some  of  its  accepted 
teachings.  The  popular  sentiment  concerning  Tay- 
lorism is  not  yet  perfectly  definite. 

New  England  Theology  was  not  popular  at  the 
beginning.  Hopkins  writes  in  1796:  "About  forty 
years  ago  there  were  but  few,  perhaps  not  more  than 
four  or  five,  who  espoused  the  sentiments  which  since 
have  been  called  Edwardean  and  New  Divinity,  and 
since  some  improvement  was  made  upon  them  Hop- 


12  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

kintonian  or  Hopkinsian.  But  these  sentiments  have 
so  spread  since  that  time  among  ministers,  especially 
those  who  have  since  come  upon  the  stage,  that  there 
are  now  more  than  a  hundred  in  the  ministry  who 
espouse  the  same  sentiments  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  And  the  number  seems  to  be  fast  increas- 
ing, and  these  sentiments  seem  to  be  coming  more 
and  more  into  credit,  and  are  better  understood,  and 
the  odium  which  was  cast  upon  them,  and  those  who 
preached  them  is  greatly  subsided."  ^  This  theology 
continued  to  enlarge  its  power  and  influence  after  Hop- 
kins' day.  He  probably  never  heard  the  term  Emmons- 
ism,  certainly  knew  nothing  of  Taylorism.  Its  growth, 
however,  was  not  a  symmetrical  development,  but 
was  rather  like  the  growth  of  a  cactus,  by  means  of 
branches  thrust  out  here  and  there  from  the  parent  stock. 
The  periods  more  marked  by  earnest,  sometimes  sharp 
debate,  were  the  fifteen  years  between  1760  and  1775, 
and  a  few  years  following  1826,  the  echoes  of  the 
later  contention  being  heard  as  late  as  1837.  Still  it 
made  constant  progress  and  was  felt  as  a  power 
through  the  century  already  designated,  and  that  not 
only  in  the  Eastern  States,  but  through  all  the 
Northern  States  of  the  Union,  and  was  received  with 
a  cordial  welcome  in  parts  of  England  and  Scotland. 
The  increasing  and  continued  popularity  of  this 
scheme  of  doctrine  was  due  to  the  character  of  its 
adherents  as  much  as  to  its  inherent  merit.  It  became 
an  aggressive  force.  It  was  in  accord  with  the  spirit 
of  the  age.  It  is  not  improbable  that  its  opponents 
have  always  been  more  numerous  in  New  England 

1.    Works,  Edition  of  1852,  I,  238,  Memoir. 


SUMMAKY  STATEMENT.  13 

than  its  advocates,  but  it  absorbed  the  theological  im- 
pulses of  the  time;  those  who  resisted  it  acted,  for 
the  most  part,  on  the  defensive;  the  Hopkinsian 
esprit  de  corps  was  the  current  theological  spirit. 
The  new  divinity  men  were  active  in  reforms,  made 
use  of  the  press  to  disseminate  their  ideas,  and  were 
successful  in  forming  organizations  which  should 
modify  and  utilize  public  opinion.  Especially  in  the 
period  of  polemic  and  political  ferment  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  last  century  was  the  spirit  of  the  new 
divinity  men  in  sympathy  with  the  popular  drift  of 
thought. 

Hopkins  was  pastor  at  Great  Barrington  twenty- 
five  years.  This  was  the  quarter  of  the  century  in 
which  the  French  and  Indian  \Yar  occurred.  He  was 
pastor  at  Newport,  R.  I.,  thirty-three  years  from  1770. 
The  first  thirteen  years  of  this  pastorate  were  years 
of  commotion,  because  of  the  conflict  between  the 
Colonies  and  England,  culminating  in  the  War  of  the 
Revolution.  He  was  a  decided  patriot,  as  were  most 
of  his  theological  associates.  In  their  speculations, 
they  partook  of  the  spirit  of  the  times.  Individual 
independence  was  in  the  air.  It  came  near  wrecking 
the  colonial  cause.  It  gave  variant  statements  to 
Christian  doctrines.  Hopkins  assures  us  that  while 
Edwards  was  a  Calvinist,  he  called  no  man  master, 
and  was  much  of  an  original.  He  is  himself  careful 
to  give  his  readers  to  understand,  that,  while  he  agreed 
for  the  most  part  with  Edwards,  he  was  not  afraid 
to  dissent  from  his  teachings.  Dr.  Stephen  West 
wrote  on  moral  agency:  he  was  a  disciple  of  Hop- 
kins and  an  admirer  of  Edwards,  but  claims  to  have 


14  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

elaborated  his  own  system,  and  to  have  noticed  some 
errors  in  EdAvards.  Smalley  wrote  the  work  on  nat- 
ural and  moral  ability  to  which  is  conceded  the  first 
place  among  essays  on  that  topic,  yet  he  ridiculed 
some  of  the  views  of  both  Edwards  and  Emmons. 
Emmons  was,  by  common  consent,  the  boldest  thinker 
and  writer  in  the  entire  school,  while  Taylorism  has 
in  many  minds  obscured  or  displaced  Hopkinsianism. 
New  England  Theology  was  thus  built  up  by  the 
co-operation  of  independent  minds  working  each  from 
a  personal  impulse,  which  was  yet  a  part  of  the  gen- 
eral impulse  by  which  the  community  was  moved. 

Where  there  is  so  much  of  individuality  and  inde- 
pendence there  is  danger  that  these  qualities  will 
degenerate  to  a  mere  ridiculous  pretence,  but  there 
was  no  such  result  in  the  case  before  us.  The  num- 
ber of  writers  and  preachers  of  note  between  Edwards 
and  Taylor  is  really  a  matter  of  wonder.  Probably 
twenty-five  might  be  named  in  the  small  territory  of 
New  England  who  would  be  called  distinguished  men, 
and  more  than  twice  that  number  could  have  been 
found  who  would  have  been  good  theological  teachers. 
Some  of  them  were  men  of  great  acuteness  and  some 
of  original  power  as  thinkers.  In  proof  of  this,  we 
have  only  now  to  refer,  in  addition  to  names  already 
mentioned,  to   Bellamy,  D wight.  Spring  and   Griffin. 

We  have  already  reached  a  point  where  the  rela- 
tion of  theological  parties  in  New  England  comes  to 
view,  and  it  is  well  to  have  them  in  mind  from  the 
first.  The  great  division  is  into  Calvinists  and  Anti- 
Calvinists.  But  each  of  these  parties  is  to  be 
sub-divided.      The   Anti-Calvinists   are  made  up  of 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION.  15 

Pelagians  and  Arminians.  The  Pelagians  are  ration- 
alists and  naturally  drift  into  Unitarianism.  The 
term  Arniinian  now  suggests  the  Methodists,  but 
the  Arminians  of  Edwards'  day  were  the  Liberals, 
whose  natural  successors  are  to  be  found  to  some 
extent  among  the  Unitarians,  still  more  among  the 
Methodists,  and  in  goodly  numbers  among  Orthodox 
Congregationalists.  The  Calvinists  also  fall  into  two 
parties:  the  ^^Old  Divinity '^  men  and  the  "Xew 
Divinity ''  men.  The  Old  Divinity  men  are  some- 
times called  ^^ Old  Calvinists;'' a  better  designation  is 
*^  Moderate  Calvinists."  Some  of  their  views  resem- 
bled those  of  early  Arminians.  The  New  Divinity 
men  were  known  as  Hopkinsians.  They  often  called 
themselves  "Consistent  Calvinists."  Their  theology 
is  the  "  New  England  Theology."  Their  most  stren- 
uous contentions,  which  will  be  noticed  hereafter, 
were  in  opposition  to  Moderate  or  Old  Calvinism. 

II. 

THE    RELIGIOUS    CONDITION    OF    NEW    ENGLAND 
IN    1730. 

The  rise  of  New  England  Theology  was  contem- 
poraneous with  the  great  revival.  The  country  was 
prepared  for  theological  investigation  as  well  as  sus- 
ceptible of  religious  excitement.  Christian  people 
had  become  alarmed  over  the  lax  state  of  public 
morals,  and  the  public  mind  was  deliberating  upon 
the  comparative  worth  of  a  liberal  and  a  strict  scheme 
of  doctrine.  These  two  points  are  worthy  of  notice, 
as  preparatory  to  a  study  of  the  topic  before  us. 


16  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

1.     The  Lax  State  of  Morals. 

It  seems  a  defiance  of  natural  development,  and 
a  mockery  of  human  purposes,  that  the  model  Christ- 
tian  Commonwealth  of  the  Puritans  should  fall  into 
gross  immoralities.  That  a  century  of  experience 
under  the  domination  of  the  strictest  rules  of  right- 
eousness should  result  in  social  vices  and  disorders, 
almost  leads  us  to  despair  of  the  final  prevalence  of 
virtue.  The  Puritans  came  to  this  country  to  Chris- 
tianize America,  within  a  century  they  found  that 
they  were,  to  use  their  own  language,  in  danger  of 
being  themselves  paganized. 

We  may  leave  out  of  the  account  the  Plymouth 
Colony,  in  considering  this  topic,  since  it  did  not 
number  more  than  three  hundred  souls  in  1630,  when 
immigrants  were  flocking  into  Salem  and  Boston  by 
thousands.  The  Massachusetts  Colony  did  not  con- 
sider itself  under  obligation  to  share  its  privileges 
with  every  one  who  might  choose  to  settle  among 
them,  but  held  it  to  be  a  duty  to  limit  the  society 
to  congenial  members.  Accordingly,  in  1631  the 
General  Court  adopted  the  following; 

"To  the  end  the  body  of  the  Commons  may  be 
preserved  of  honest  and  good  men,  it  is  likewise 
ordered  and  agreed  that  for  time  to  come,  no  man 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the  body  politic, 
but  such  as  are  members  of  some  of  the  churches 
within  the  limits  of  the  same.'' 

Palfrey,  in  his  History  of  New  England,  says  this 
ordinance  was  passed:  "at  the  first  cisatlantic  Gen- 
eral Court  for  election,"  and  comments  on  it  thus : 


EAKLY  EELIGIOCJS  CONDITION.  l7 

"  They  established  a  kind  of  aristocracy  hitherto 
unknown.  Not  birth,  nor  wealth,  nor  learning, 
nor  skill  in  war,  w^as  to  confer  political  power,  but 
personal  character, — goodness  of  the  highest  type, — 
goodness  of  that  purity  and  force  which  only  the 
faith  of  Jesus  Christ  is  competent  to  create/'  ^ 

He  says  also: 

"The  freemen  of  the  Massachusetts  Company 
had  a  right  in  equity  and  in  law,  to  expel  from 
their  territory  all  persons  who  should  give  them 
trouble.  In  their  corporate  capacity,  they  were 
owners  of  Massachusetts  in  fee,  by  a  title  to  all 
intents  as  good  as  that  by  which  any  freeholder  among 
them  had  held  his  English  farm.''^ 

Foi  a  time  the  community  maintained  a  very  high 
moral  position.  Religion  was  a  part  of  their  busi- 
ness, and  business  was  a  religious  exercise.  They 
provided  for  attendance  at  church,  as  they  did  for 
their  daily  meals  and  household  comforts,  as  among 
the  necessaries  of  life.  Inns  and  houses  of  public 
resort  were  not  permitted  to  harbor  those  able  to  go 
to  meeting,  during  the  time  of  the  week-day  lecture ; 
violations  of  the  Sabbath  were  made  penal  offences. 
Actuated  by  these  principles  and  armed  with  these 
poAvers,  they  were  able  during  the  life  of  the  first 
immigrants  effectually  to  repress  open  vices.  They 
could  expel  Antinomians  and  Quakers.  They  could 
repress  witchcraft  and  maintain  a  homogeneous  society. 
But  Puritans  could  not  hang  or  banish  their  own 
children,  though  they  should  be  born  in  a  state  of 
total  depravity.      Puritan  dominion  did  not  change  the 

1.     I,  345.  2.     I,  387. 


18  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

natural  tendencies  of  humanity.  The  young  people 
would  have  their  sports.  Parents  could  not  avoid 
excusing,  if  they  did  not  approve,  the  innocent  amuse- 
ments of  the  young,  and  it  was  impossible  then,  as 
it  ever  is,  to  draw  the  line  between  the  innocent  and 
the  mischievous.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
public  morals  became  considerably  relaxed  within 
twenty  years  after  the  first  Puritan  landing  at  Salem, 
and  within  thirty  years  real  alarm  was  excited  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  had  watched  the  progress  of 
events  from  the  beginning. 

There  were  other  causes  than  the  drift  of  human 
nature  which  served  to  roughen,  if  not  corrupt,  the 
manners  and  morals  of  the  people.  It  was  early 
noticed  that  there  was  a  "hankering  for  more  land'^ 
among  the  inhabitants.  The  population  was  contin- 
ually reaching  out  for  new  and  larger  possessions. 
In  1636,  Rev.  Thomas  Hooker  and  his  church  emi- 
grated from  Newtown  to  Hartford.  Settlements  were 
early  made  along  the  Connecticut  River,  and  then  on 
the  Deerfield  River.  It  has  been  said  that  "  emigra- 
tion tends  to  barbarism;'^  it  must  suppress  many  of 
the  conventionalities  and  social  amenities  of  life. 
Although  the  Puritans  were  scrupulous  in  their  care 
for  the  institutions  of  learning  and  religion,  they 
could  not  secure  among  the  young,  through  all  their 
scattered  homes,  the  taste  and  polished  manners  that 
belong  to  established  and  well  ordered  social  life. 

A  still  more  disturbing  influence  than  that  of 
emigration  is  to  be  found  in  the  internal  commotions 
and  external  dangers  of  the  period.  It  is  difficult 
for  us  to  form  an  idea  of  the  turmoils  that  beset  the 


EAKLY  EEIvIGIOUS  CONDITION.  I9 

early  inhabitants  of  New  England.  The  Indian  raids 
upon  the  colonies,  the  contentions  between  France 
and  England,  the  war  of  the  Eevolution,  together 
make  its  history  one  of  incessant  dangers  and  struggles. 
The  thoughts  of  the  young  were  early  turned  towards 
border  warfare.  The  care  of  those  in  mature  life 
was  often  for  the  safety  of  their  families.  As  early 
as  1636  and  1637,  the  struggle  known  as  the  Pequot 
war  occupied  the  attention  of  Connecticut  and  Mass- 
achusetts. In  1643,  a  union  of  the  colonies  was 
effected  for  the  purposes  of  defence  against  the  Dutch, 
the  French  and  the  Indians.  The  bloody  and  de- 
structive contention,  known  as  King  Phillip's  war, 
which  decimated  the  population,  continued  from  1675 
to  1678.  Following  these  struggles  with  the  native 
population.  King  "William's  war.  Queen  Anne's  war, 
King  George's  War,  the  French  and  Indian  War, 
filled  three-quarters  of  a  century  with  the  terrors  and 
horrors  that  have  made  all  readers  of  history  shudder 
at  the  names  of  Brookfield,  Bloody  Brook,  Dover, 
Wells  and  Deerfield.  In  truth,  bloodshed,  torture, 
scalping,  imprisonments,  made  the  years  of  New  Eng- 
land colonization  one  long  tragedy. 

Under  such  influences,  the  moral  condition  of  the 
country  sank  to  a  lower  and  lower  level.  The  de- 
terioration was  early  felt,  and  before  a  half  century 
had  passed,  called  forth  profound  sorrow  and  lamen- 
tation.     Increase  Mather  in  1678,  said: 

"The  body  of  the  rising  generation  is  a  poor, 
erishin^,  unconverted  and  (except  the  Lord  pour 
own   his   spirit)  undone  generation  ! "  ^ 

1.    Dexter's  Conprregationalism  in  its  Literature,  476. 


d 


20  NEW  ENGlvAND  THEOLOGY. 

" The  Reforming  Synod ''  convened  in  1679,  thus 
enumerates  the  judgments  by  which  God  was  afflic- 
ting the  country  because  of  its  sins. 

"Heavy  calamities  by  sea  and  shore,  ship- 
wrecks, droughts,  conflagrations,  fightings,  pestilential 
sicknesses,  and  commercial  disasters.  These  evils  are 
considered  as  punishments  for  abounding  pride,  neglect 
of  church-fellowship  and  other  divine  institutions, 
oaths  and  imprecations  in  ordinary  discourse.  Sabbath- 
breaking,  remissness  in  family  government  and  family 
worship,  intemperance,  promise-breaking,  immodest 
dress  and  mixed  dancing.^  ^ 

The  evils  here  complained  of  continued  and  in- 
creased through  the  century,  and  for  thirty  or 
more  years  in  the  following  century.  Edwards 
was  unsparing  in  his  denunciation  of  the  evil  habits 
prevalent  at  Northampton.  He  preached  against 
night- walking,  gaming,  company-keeping,  tavern- 
haunting,  midnight  frolics. 

When  Edwards  began  preaching  in  Northampton 
in  1727,  the  question  had  been  before  Ncav  England 
for  seventy  years ;  What  can  be  done  to  arrest  the 
decay  of  morals  and  to  Christianize  the  community? 
The  original  plan  had  been  to  make  New  England  a 
paradise  by  establishing  a  strictly  regenerate  church- 
membership.  The  result  had  been  to  deplete  the 
church  and  paganize  the  English  population.  The 
children  of  church  members  were  baptized  in  infancy, 
but  if  not  converted  were  not  admitted  to  the  church, 
and  their  children  were  not  baptized.  Many  of  the 
second  generation   of  American  birth   had,  therefore, 

1.    Palfrey's  New  England,  III,  331. 


EARLY  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION.  21 

no  connection  of  any  kind  with  the  churches.  The 
case  excited  anxiety  and  alarm  very  early.  In  1657, 
before  the  colony  was  thirty  years  old,  the  Massa- 
chusetts Court  called  together  thirteen  teaching  elders 
to  advise  upon  the  matter.  Four  delegates  from 
Connecticut  joined  in  their  deliberations.  After  a 
fortnight's  discussion,  the  conference  proposed  a  par- 
tial return  to  the  old  world  method  of  constituting 
church  membership.  It  proposed  that  those  who  had 
been  baptized  should  own  the  covenant,  though  un- 
regenerate,  and  then  have  their  children  baptized. 
Thus  a  connection  vnth  the  church  could  be  made 
general.  It  was  argued  by  some,  that  the  children 
of  those  who  had  been  baptized  were  already  church- 
members,  baptism,  as  a  sealing  ordinance,  being  simply 
the  recognition  of  an  existing  fact.  It  was  hence 
inferred  that  the  descendants  of  a  remote  baptized  an- 
cestor might  be  baptized.  This  idea  was  sometimes, 
probably  not  often,  actually  adopted  in  practice.  This 
scheme  was  called  the  half-way  covenant.  It  did 
not  at  once  meet  with  favor,  but  was  sustained  by 
the  feeling  that  something  must  be  done,  was  urgently 
commended  by  a  larger  Synod  in  1662,  and,  though 
still  strenuously  opposed  by  some  of  the  ablest  of  the 
ministry,  finally  met  with  general  acquiescence,  and 
was  extensively  adopted  as  a  Christian  ordinance. 
Those  connected  with  the  church  through  the  half- 
way covenant,  were  not  expected  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  yet  there  were  those  who  opposed 
regenerate  church-membership,  and  admitted  to  full 
communion  any  who  accepted  the  Christian  doctrines 
and  lived  reputable  and  upright  lives.      They  held 


22  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

that  the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper  was  a  converting 
ordinance.  Notably  Solomon  Stoddard  of  North- 
hampton, grand-father  of  President  EdAvards,  advo- 
cated this  view.  But,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
effect  of  the  half-way  covenant,  and  whatever  may 
be  the  advantages  of  hereditary  church  membership 
in  the  old  world,  in  1730,  something  more  radical 
and  thorough-going  was  demanded  for  the  restoration 
of  an  elevated  and  pervasive  religious  life  in  America. 
There  was  needed  a  counteracting  force  which  should 
eradicate  the  worldliness  of  those  whose  thoughts  had 
been  much  engrossed  in  the  preparation  of  homes  in 
a  new  country;  there  was  needed  some  power  that 
should  be  more  impressive  and  awe-inspiring  than  the 
military  and  predatory  movements  that  had  agitated 
the  community.  There  was  needed  some  popular 
movement  that  should  impress  men  with  the  dignity 
of  the  divine  side  of  man's  nature  and  of  his  respon- 
sibility to  God.  This  was  found  in  the  great  revival 
of  1740.  The  half-way  covenant,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  considered  by  the  most  earnest  promoters  of 
that  revival  to  be  a  hindrance  to  the  progress  of 
religion,  and  has,  though  for  a  time  earnestly  defended, 
gradually  fallen  into  disuse. 

2.  Laxity  in  Christian  Doctrine.  This 
accompanied  laxity  in  morals. 

New  England  Theology  was  a  new  and  definite 
statement  of  Calvinism.  It  claimed  to  be  an  im- 
proved and  defensible  statement,  and  at  times  assumed 
the  designation  "Consistent  Calvinism.'^  This  was 
the  resultant.  At  first  it  simply  aimed  to  tone  up 
the  beliefs  of  the  churches.      Cold  and  barren  relig- 


EAKLY  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION.  23 

ious  sentiments  had  taken  possession  of  many  minds 
before  the  great  revival,  and  earnest  Christian  teachers 
felt  called  upon  to  resist  the  downward  tendency. 
The  occasion  for  this  spirit  of  reform  is  easily  ac- 
counted for.  The  influence  of  the  Non-Conformists 
of  England,  who  had  already  drifted  towards  or  into 
Unitarianism,  was  strongly  felt  in  this  country,  and 
called  forth  determined  antagonism. 

There  was  constant  intercourse  between  the  Amer- 
ican settlements  and  the  old  home.  It  was  natural 
that  the  people  here  should  look  thither  for  guidance, 
that  the  intellectual  and  moral  forces  operative  there 
should  be  early  and  deeply  felt  here.  It  may  be 
assumed  that  the  thinkers,  the  men  whose  published 
works  stirred  the  intellect  of  the  age  would,  if  known 
in  England,  have  also  much  influence  on  the  scholars 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The  array  of  giant  thinkers 
w^ho  appeared  at  just  the  time  to  exert  a  powerful 
influence  upon  English  and  American  students  in  the 
first  half  of  the  18th  century,  is  marvellous.  Besides 
the  philosophers  Hobbes,  Locke,  Spinoza,  Malebranche, 
Leibnitz  and  others,  there  were  the  free-thinkers, 
known  as  the  English  Deists,  Tindal,  Woolston, 
Morgan,  Collins  and  Bolingbroke.  Such  men  sway 
the  thinking  of  an  age,  their  power  is  felt  even  by 
those  who  do  not  know  them  by  name.  Not  one  of 
these  men  wakened  warm  religious  feelings  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  came  under  their  power,  the 
tendency  of  their  teaching  was  to  skeptical  and  ration- 
alistic speculations.  Many  English  theologians  fell 
in  with  the  spirit  of  the  age  and  communicated  their 
sentiments  to  their  brethren  across  the  sea. 


24  ^"EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Another  powerful  motive  to  intellectual  activity, 
suggestive  too  of  doubts  as  to  the  Christian  faith, 
was  found  in  the  study  of  nature,  which  received  a 
fresh  impetus  from  the  investigations  of  Boyle, 
NcAvton,  and  other  representatives  of  the  Koyal 
Society.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  discoveries 
of  Newton  stirred  deeply  the  intellect  and  imagination 
of  Edwards,  though  he  early  adopted  theology  as 
his  theme  of  study. 

We  are  now  concerned,  however,  more  specially 
with  the  theological  tendencies  of  the  age.  There 
was  much  to  favor  liberal  views,  much  to  favor 
fatalism,  little  to  favor  orthodox  Calvinism.  The 
advocates  of  Arminian  freedom  of  will  claimed  that 
they  were  supported  by  the  religious  thinking  of  the 
time,  and  denounced  Calvinism  as  in  harmony  with 
the  views  of  Hobbes  and  Collins.  Anti-trinitarian 
views  in  former  times,  as  in  the  present  century, 
have  grown  out  of  a  liberal  theology,  and  Milton, 
Locke,  Newton  and  Clarke  were  classed  as  opponents 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Wattes  view  of  the 
Son  of  God  had  its  influence  in  this  country,  and 
was  controverted  by  Edwards.  Thus  there  was  dur- 
ing the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  deep, 
broad  and  strong  current  of  sentiment  tending 
towards  liberalism,  or  more  properly  rationalism  and 
Unitarianism. 

A  book  that  had  much  influence  in  this  country, 
though  not  directly  calling  out  the  Edwardean  and 
Hopkinsian  discussions,  was  that  of  Thomas  Emlyn, 
entitled  "  An  Humble  Inquiry  into  the  Scripture 
Account  of  Jesus  Christ ;  or  a  Short  Argument  Con- 


EAKLY  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION.  25 

cerning  His  Deity  and  Glory,  According  to  the 
Gospel.''  Emlyn  was  born  in  1663,  died  in  1741. 
In  1691  he  became  colleague  pastor  with  a  Mr. 
Boyce  over  a  dissenting  congregation  in  Dublin.  He 
became  unsettled  in  his  theological  views  from  read- 
ing Sherlock's  treatise  on  the  Trinity.  He  said  in 
1697  that  he  probably  could  not  retain  his  place  as 
pastor  if  he  should  disclose  his  sentiments  on  that 
topic.  He  was  dismissed  from  his  church  by  a 
meeting  of  ministers  in  1702.  He  considered  that 
his  dismissal  put  him  under  the  necessity  of  pub- 
lishing his  vicAvs,  which  he  did  the  same  year.  He 
was  thereupon  indicted  by  a  jury,  charged  with  hav- 
ing published  an  infamous  and  scandalous  libel, 
'^That  Jesus  Christ  is  not  equal  to  God  the  Father." 
He  was  tried,  convicted,  sentenced  to  fine  and  im- 
prisonment. He  argued  that  Jesus  Christ  has  a  God 
above  him,  and  that,  therefore,  he  is  not  the  Supreme 
God.  He  held,  however,  that  an  inferior  religious 
worship  of  him  is  not  only  allowed  but  required  by 
the  Scriptures.  He  discarded  the  view  that  Christ's 
sufferings  are  an  equivalent  compensation  to  vindictive 
justice  for  the  sins  of  men,  but  taught  that  "he,  by 
his  obedience  unto  death,  made  so  acceptable  and 
rewardable  an  oblation  unto  God,  that  in  considera- 
tion thereof  he  is  exalted  to  be  a  princely  advocate 
with  a  merciful  God,  and  his  intercession  prevalent 
for  pardon  which  he  is  authorized  to  grant." 

These  sentiments  were,  in  fact,  the  Unitarian 
leaven  which  worked  among  the  clergy  of  Eastern 
Massachusetts,  confessedly  with  effect  upon  Experi- 
ence Mayhew,  and  doubtless  with  still  greater  effect  upon 


26  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

his  son,  Jonathan  Mayhew,  and  upon  Lemuel  Briant. 
The  last  two  made  much  of  teaching  moral  duties,  paid 
little  attention  to  the  creed.  The  effect  of  Emlyn's 
work,  which  was  republished  in  Boston  as  late  as  1756, 
excited  the  fears  of  Edwards  though  he  did  not  bring 
it  under  discussion  in  his  controversial  writings. 

William  Whiston  (1667-1752)  was  a  man  of 
much  learning  and  a  voluminous  writer.  He  was 
in  earlier  life  a  friend  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  and  suc- 
ceeded him  in  the  Lucasian  professorship  at  Cam- 
bridge about  the  year  1700.  He  began  to  entertain 
doubts  concerning  the  Trinity  as  early  as  1706,  and 
in  1710  was  dismissed  from  his  professorship  for 
heresy.  He  published  his  "Primitive  Christianity 
Eevived^'  (4  volumes)  in  1711.  Other  works  op- 
posed to  the  Trinity  and  in  favor  of  the  canonicity 
of  certain  apocryphal  books  of  the  New  Testament 
followed.  He  held  that  there  is  one  original  fountain 
of  being,  one  God,  the  Father.  He  held  to  the  three 
divine  persons,  but  that  the  Father  is  the  only  true 
God  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  the  only  being 
possessed  of  absolutely  infinite  attributes  and  perfec- 
tions. He  did  not  consider  the  Son  and  the  Spirit 
as  subordinate  creatures,  but  subordinate  persons,  to 
whom  neither  the  Scriptures  nor  the  primitive  Chris- 
tian writings  attribute  absolute  equality  with  the 
Father.  He  was  considered  an  Arian,  or  more  pro- 
perly a  Semi- Arian.  His  writings  were  known  in  this 
country  and  exerted  no  inconsiderable  influence,  yet  his 
later  life  was  such  as  to  detract  somewhat  from  the 
estimate  in  which  he  was  held.  In  1747  he  left  the 
established  church  and  joined  the  Arminian  Baptists. 


EAKLY  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION.  27 

The  name  of  John  Taylor,  of  Norwich,  has  been 
more  familiarly  known  in  New  England  than  that  of 
any  other  of  the  heretical  English  writers  of  his  day. 
His  work  on  ^^  Original  Sin'^  furnished  Edwards  a 
very  convenient  statement  of  Pelagian  doctrine  in  his 
assault  upon  that  system.  Taylor^s  waitings  are 
clear,  plausible,  attractive  in  form,  and  well  adapted 
to  popular  use.  Edwards'  careful,  extended  and 
overwhelming  replies  to  his  arguments  give  them  a 
dignity  which  they  do  not  possess  in  themselves. 
Taylor  seems  desirous  of  turning  attention  from  him- 
self and  appeals  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  only  author- 
ity. In  his  work  entitled  "  Scripture  Doctrine  of 
Original  Sin  Proposed  to  Free  and  Candid  Exami- 
nation,''  he  says: 

^^  I  warrant  nothing  of  my  own  in  the  present 
inquiries.  I  undertake  to  make  nothing  good,  the 
Scriptures  are  the  rule  of  faith.'' 

In  dedicating  to  the  people  of  his  charge  his 
Paraphrase  of  Romans,  he  says : 

"  It  is  the  design  of  this  essay,  setting  aside 
all  hiunan  schemes,  and  my  ow^n  imagination,  to  give 
you  the  true  scheme  of  Christianity,  collected  im- 
mediately from  that  pure  fountain,  (Scripture),  care- 
ftilly  comparing  one  part  with  another,  that  your  faith, 
hope  and  joy  may  stand  not  upon  the  wisdom  of 
man,  but  upon  the  firm  and  immovable  foundation 
of  the   word   of  God." 

His  views  of  original  sin  and  of  the  atonement  do 
not  differ  from  those  of  the  early  Unitarians  of  this 
country,   and   need    not    be    noticed    at    large.      He 


28  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

traced  all  sin  to  an  evil  will ;  held  that  necessary  sin 
is  no  sin;  that  men  are  not  by  nature  indisposed  to 
all  good;  that  regeneration  is  acquiring  habits  of 
virtue  and  religion;  that  God  is  just  in  inflicting 
death  upon  men  because  it  is  made  a  benefit ;  that 
we  receive  from  Christ  abounding  blessings  which 
more  than  compensate  for  Adam's  sin ;  that  even 
now,  if  all  influences  were  favorable,  our  circum- 
stances would  be  preferable  to  those  in  which  Adam 
was  placed.  He  put  all  moral  qualities  in  individual 
action,  and  held  that  the  doctrine  of  original  right- 
eousness is  as  great  an  error  as  that  of  original  sin. 
Daniel  Whitby,  whose  writings  exerted  a  consid- 
erable influence  in  this  country,  first  in  favor  of 
Arminianism,  afterwards  in  favor  of  Unitarianism, 
was  born  in  Northamptonshire,  England,  in  1638." 
He  became  a. commoner  at  Trinity  College,  Oxford, 
in  1653.  He  became  a  Perpetual  Fellow  at  the  age 
of  twenty-four.  He  was  appointed  Rector  of  St. 
Edmund's  Church,  Salisbury,  in  1672,  and  Preben- 
dary of  Taunton  Regis  in  1696.  He  died  March 
24,  1726.  He  was  a  voluminous  writer.  His  work 
best  known  in  this  country  is  that  on  the  Five  Points 
of  Calvinism.  The  work  considered  most  valuable 
is,  "  A  Paraphrase  and  Commentary  on  the  New  Tes- 
tament," published  in  1703.  He  says  of  himself  that 
he  was  seven  years  under  Calvinistical  teaching ;  that 
he  found  escape  from  such  doctrines  as  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  sin  by  reading  the  works  of  Joshua 
Placacus;  and  later  by  study  of  the  scriptures,  found 
that  they  did  not  teach  election  and  reprobation.  His 
first  published  writings  were  directed  against  Romanism 


EAELY  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION.  29 

of  which  he  was  a  strenuous  opponent.  He  was 
known  as  an  Arminian,  and  says  if  any  condemn 
him  for  his  views  while  adhering  to  the  Church  of 
England,  almost  all  the  bishops  and  the  great  body 
of  the  clergy  must  be  condemned  with  him. 

At  a  later  day  he  began  to  question  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  and  finally  became  an  Arian.  In 
1714,  he  preached  a  sermon  in  which  he  maintained 
that  nothing  ought  to  be  admitted  as  an  article  of 
faith,  which  is  repugnant  to  the  common  principles 
of  reason.  The  same  year  he  published  a  small 
book,  entitled,  "Dissuasives  from  Inquiring  into  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  or  the  Difficulties  and  Dis- 
couragements which  attend  the  Study  of  that  Doc- 
trine.'^    In  speaking  of  Christ,  he  says : 

"This  must  be  the  very  person  promised  to  the 
Jews  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  so  must  have  a  t^ue 
dominion  from  the  Supreme  Author  of  all  dominion ; 
and  so  be  venis  Deus^  truly  God,  though  not  summus 
DeiiSj  the  Supreme  God,  or  God  Most  High.''  ^ 

Several  of  his  works  wxre  controversial,  wTitten 
in  refutation  of  the  positions  of  Bull  and  "Waterland. 

It  is  clear  then  that  in  1730  Calvinism  was  suf- 
fering an  eclipse.  The  theological  views  of  the 
people  had,  in  many  cases  swerved  much  from  the 
old  standard.  Both  Puritans  and  Separatists  had 
been  Calvinistic  in  their  sentiments.  John  Robinson 
did  good  service  in  Holland  in  opposition  to  Ar- 
minianism;  the  Cambridge  Synod  of  1648  eulogized 
the  Westminster  Confession    as    holy,    orthodox   and 

1.    Last  Thoughts,  p.  65. 


30  NEW  ENGlvAND  THEOLOGY. 

judicious  in  matters  of  faith;  the  Boston  Synod  of 
1680  adopted  the  Savoy  Confession  of  1653,  which 
is  the  equivalent  of  the  Westminster,  in  doctrine; 
the  Saybrook  Synod  of  1708,  did  the  same.  Samuel 
Willard,  M.A.,  Vice-president  of  Harvard  College, 
gave  a  series  of  monthly  lectures  in  Boston,  on  the 
Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism.  The  lectures  were 
strictly  Calvinistic.  They  extended  from  1688  to 
1707.  But  Calvinism  was  early  the  object  of  attack 
in  New  England.  Charles  Francis  Adams  claims 
that  Quincy,  the  North  Precinct  of  Braintree,  was 
always  liberal,  that  the  people  never  accepted 
Calvinism,  or  strong  orthodoxy.  He  says  also,  when 
New  England  Unitarianism  assumed  shape,  and  Chan- 
ning  foreshadowed  Parker, 

"John  Adams,  discussing  in  1815,  the  principles 
of  the  new  departure,  found  in  them  nothing  that 
was  not  familiarly  known  to  him,  and  bore  testi- 
mony to  the  fact  that  sixty-five  years  before,  Lemuel 
Briant  was  a  Unitarian.^ 

Briant  was  pastor  of  the  church  in  Quincy  from 
1745  to  1753,  and  was  charged  by  his  contempo- 
rary ministers  with  being  an  Arminian  and  a 
Socinian.  Eev.  Experience  Mayhew,  who  published 
his  "Grace  Defended"  in  1744,  says  in  his  preface, 
that  he  is  a  Calvinist,  but  that  he  is  in  the  habit 
of  reading  Arminian  books,  and  has  been  led  to 
see  that  Calvinism  labors  under  some  difficulties. 

Mayhew  represented  a  class  of  Calvinists  known 
as  Old  Calvinists  or  Moderate  Calvinists.      There  is  a 

1.    Three  Episodes  in  Mass.  Hist.,  pp.  638,  642,  944. 


EAKLY  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION.  3I 

view  of  election  and  divine  sovereignty  which  fosters 
the  idea  that  the  impenitent  may  await  God's  time 
for  their  conversion.  They  are  to  avail  themselves 
of  the  means  of  grace,  such  as  attendance  upon  public 
worship,  prayer  and  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  to  live  in  the  expectation  that  God  will,  when 
the  appointed  time  comes,  work  upon  them  with  re- 
generating power.  This  view  was  cherished  by  the 
half-way  covenant  and  by  Stoddardism.  The  view 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  as  well  as  baptism,  is  a 
means  of  grace  for  the  impenitent,  has  been  exten- 
sively held,  is  by  many  theologians  firmly  maintained 
at  this  day.  Dr.  Hopkins,  in  his  life  of  Edwards, 
says : 

^^  Stoddard's  principles  spread  among  the  people 
of  the  country  and  other  parts  of  ^ew  England, 
though  no  church  except  Northampton,  publicly  and 
professedly  acted  on  this  principle  by  altering  the 
profession  that  those  made  who  were  admitted  to  the 
Sacrament,  to  suit  it  to  such  a  notion."  ^ 

The  State  of  the  Churches  in  the  Xorthern  Colo- 
nies before  the  Great  Awakening,  has  often  been 
spoken  of  as  adherence  to  ^'a  low  Arminianism." 
At  the  present  time,  Arminian  is  a  term  associated 
with  Methodism,  and  so  with  religious  zeal,  pointed 
preaching  and  revivals,  but  there  was  no  Methodism 
at  that  time  in  this  country,  and  the  term  seems  to 
have  been  used  to  designate  any  kind  of  laxity  and 
indifference  in  Christian  life.  Mr.  Mills,  in  his  dis- 
cussion with  Hopkins,  speaks  of  those  as  Arminians 
who    held    that    regeneration   takes   place    at    or   by 

1.    p.  61. 


32  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

baptism.^  Trumbull,  in  his  History  of  Connecticut, 
speaking  of  certain  religious  movements  in  that 
state   says: 

"Every  measure  appears  to  have  been  taken  to 
suppress  the  zealous,  experimental  preachers  and 
people,  both  by  the  legislature  and  the  leaders 
among  the  clergy.  Numbers  of  them  were  Ar- 
minians,  preachers  of  a  dead,  cold  morality,  without 
any  distinction  of  it  from  heathen  morality,  by  the 
principles  of  evangelical  love  and  faith.  Experi- 
mental religion,  ana  zeal  and  engagedness  in  preach- 
ing and  in  serving  God,  were  termed  enthusiasm."  2 

In  another  place  he  says: 

"The  assembly  manifested  their  zeal  to  suppress 
the  new  lights,  as  the  zealous  Calvinistic  ministers 
and   people  were  then  called."  ^ 

It  seems,  therefore,  that  the  low  Arminianism  of 
1730  included,  or  was  thought  of  as  including,  the 
low  Calvinism  of  the  day,  and  whatever  was  op- 
posed to  an  immediate  and  urgent  pressing  into  the 
Kingdom  of  God. 

III. 

THE    OCCASION    OF    THE    DEVELOPMENT    OF    NEW 
ENGLAND    THEOLOGY. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  exact  date  to  the  rise  of 
New  England  Theology,  but  a  division  of  the  min- 
istry into  parties  which  became,  to  some  extent,  co- 
incident with  the  division  between  "old  lights"  and 
"ncAV  lights,"  was  occasioned  by  the  great  revival  of 

1.    p.  45.  2.     II,  p.  170.  3.    II,  p.  233. 


OCCASION  OF  ITS  DEVELOPMENT.  33 

1740.  Professor  Park,  once  said  to  his  class,  that 
he  should  say  this  theology  began  ^vith  Edwards' 
treatise  on  Virtue.  This  essay  was  not  published 
till  1765,  seven  years  after  the  death  of  Edwards, 
but  it  was  read  to  Hopkins  and  Bellamy  by  Edwards 
himself.  It  was,  therefore,  before  the  minds  of  the 
new  divinity  leaders  before  their  speculations  were 
made  public.  And  it  is  w^ell-known  that  the  views 
presented  in  the  treatise,  with  other  of  his  theological 
sentiments,  were  entertained  by  Edwards  while  he 
was  still  a  student  in  New  Haven.  The  germs  of  the 
system  were  probably  in  his  mind  while  he  w^as 
reading  Locke  and  making  philosophical  notes  as  a 
student  in  Yale  College.  But  we  need  not  trace  the 
system  so  far  back,  it  was  developed  as  a  practical 
scheme;  theories  followed  after.  It  was  in  the  great 
revival  of  1740  that  the  religious  conservatism  and 
the  religious  aggression  of  New  England  came  into 
collision.  The  primal,  eminently  aggressive  force  was 
Jonathan  Edwards.  He  was  a  man  of  intense,  fervent 
energy.  He  is  known  as  a  man  of  many  resolu- 
tions, of  which  the  sixth,  written  before  he  was 
nineteen  years  old,  w^as :  "  To  live  with  all  my  might 
while  I  do  live.''  He  considered  that  the  salvation 
of  the  soul  was  to  be  sought  at  once,  persistently 
and  with  unceasing  energy.  He  says  of  himself, 
while  still  in  college,  from  which  he  graduated  at 
the  age  of  seventeen : 

"I  made  seeking  mjr  salvation  the  main  business 
of  my  life.  But  yet,  it  seems  to  me,  I  sought  it 
after  a  miserable  manner,  which  has  made  me  some- 
times since   question  whether  ever  it  issued  in  that 


34  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

which  is  saving,  being  ready  to   doubt  whether  such 
miserable  seeking  ever  succeeded." 

Such  sentiments  were  much  at  variance  with  the 
prevalent  ideas  of  the  churches.  As  we  have  no- 
ticed, it  was  to  a  large  extent  at  least,  thought  that 
the  impenitent  should  put  themselves  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  means  of  grace  and  wait  God's  time 
for  their  conversion.  Out  of  this  readily  grew  the 
idea,  that  if  one  lived  a  moral  life  and  attended 
diligently  on  the  means  of  grace,  he  had  performed 
his  whole  duty  and  might  be  considered  as  in  the 
way  of  salvation.  These  conservative  sentiments  were 
perhaps  nowhere  more  firmly  held  than  at  North- 
ampton, where  Edwards  was  settled  in  1727  as  col- 
league pastor  with  his  grand-father,  Solomon  Stoddard. 
Stoddard  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  those  con- 
fessedly unregenerate.  Without  definitely  antagoniz- 
ing his  grand-father's  teachings,  probably  even  in 
thought,  he  was  called  upon  early  in  his  ministry  to 
urge  his  hearers  to  action  in  the  work  of  their  salva- 
tion. After  five  years  of  pastoral  labor,  he  noticed 
changes  for  the  better  in  the  church  and  parish. 
There  was  more  than  usual  attention  and  inquiry  in 
the  congregations  which  he  addressed.  The  serious- 
ness of  the  people  gradually  deepened  till,  at  the 
beginning  of  1735,  he  was  in  the  midst  of  a  remark- 
able revival  of  religion.  In  the  course  of  six  months 
about  three  hundred  persons  were  hopefully  con- 
verted. The  churches  in  more  than  twenty  neigh- 
boring towns,  some  of  them  in  Connecticut,  have 
been  mentioned  as  awakened  to  new  religious  activity 
by  the  movement  at  Northampton.      In  this  revival. 


OCCASION  OF  ITS  DEVELOPMENT.  35 

Edwards  preached  sermons  prompting  his  hearers  to 
immediate  action;  sermons  bearing  the  titles,  "Press- 
ing into  the  Kingdom  of  God ;  '^  "  Ruth's  Resokition/' 
"The  Justice  of  God  in  the  Damnation  of  Sinners." 
He  also  preached  boldly  against  the  heresies  of  the 
day,  assailing  the  Arminianism  that  had  largely 
taken  possession  of  the  churches.  His  discourses 
on  "Justification  by  Faith,''  affirming  our  depen- 
dence on  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  acquired  much 
notoriety. 

So  strong  was  the  Arminian  tendency  in  the 
region  about  Northampton  that  he  was  advised  by 
his  friends  not  to  antagonize  it,  specially  not  to  com- 
mit himself  in  opposition  to  it  by  publishing  his 
sermons  on  justification.  His  failure  to  follow  the 
advice  cost  him  the  friendship  of  influential  families, 
but  he  considered  his  peculiar  Calvinistic  preaching 
a  source  of  great  power  in  the  revival,  and  it  may 
be  assumed  that  at  this  point  Xew  England  Theology 
began  to  make  itself  felt.  His  assault  upon  Armin- 
ianism must  have  been  substantially  the  same  as  that 
made  by  the  treatise  on  the  will,  as  Paul's  preaching 
as  reported  in  the  Acts,  foreshadowed  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans.  Edwards'  biographer,  Sereno  E. 
Dwight,  D.  D.,  says  in  reference  to  the  revival  of 
1735: 

"  Early  in  the  progress  of  this  work  of  grace, 
Mr.  Edwards  seems  to  have  decided  for  himself  the 
manner  in  which  he  was  bound  to  treat  awakened 
sinners  ;  to  urge  repentance  on  every  such  sinner,  as 
his  immediate  duty  ;  to  insist  that  God  is  under  no 
manner  of  obligation  to  any  unrenewed    man  ;    and 


36  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

that  a  man  can  challenge  nothing,  either  in  absolute 
justice,  or  by  free  promise,  on  account  of  anything 
he  does  before  he  repents  and  believes.^' 

It  may  be  thought  that  Dr.  Dwight  reads  New 
England  theology  into  Edwards'  method  of  work,  but 
many  expressions  of  Edwards  might  be  cited  at  least 
partially  confirmatory  of  these  statements.  He  says 
to  a  young  friend  in  answer  to  certain  inquiries: 

"  I  would  advise  you  to  keep  up  as  great  a  strife 
and  earnestness  in  religion  as  if  you  knew  yourself 
to  be  in  a  state  of  nature  and  were  seeking  conver- 
sion. We  advise  persons  under  conviction  to  be 
earnest  and  violent  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven. '^ 

The  revival  of  1735  was  of  brief  duration.  Be- 
fore the  close  of  the  year  the  religious  interest  had 
abated,  but  the  party  lines  disclosed  by  it  were  not 
obliterated.  Indeed  it  was  thought  that  theological 
diiferences  had  diverted  the  minds  of  the  people  from 
personal  religion  and  arrested  the  progress  of  the 
good  work.  The  same  division  of  parties  into 
"  old  lights  ''  and  "  new  lights  '' — those  who  would 
wait  for  the  effect  of  the  means  of  grace,  and  those 
who  would  take  the  kingdom  of  God  by  violence — 
was  disclosed  and  intensified  by  the  great  and  gen- 
eral revival  of  1740.  In  this  revival  the  attention 
of  the  people  of  New  England  was  turned  to  the 
subject  of  religion  as  at  no  other  time  in  its  history. 
It  continued  about  two  years,  and  those  who  entered 
on  the  new  life  were  numbered  by  thousands ;  some 
have  made  the  number  twenty-five,  some  fifty  thou- 
sand.     Edwards  considered  the  work   at  the  begin- 


OCCASION  OF  ITS    DEVELOPMENT.  37 

ning  purer  and  more  spiritual  than  that  of  1735,  but 
in  the  end  it  was  marred  by  sad  excesses.  In 
1740,  in  September,  Whitefield  came  to  Boston  and 
preached  with  great  power  and  to  the  great  satisfac- 
tion of  most  of  the  people.  A  few  criticised  him*- 
sharply,  and  some  spoke  of  him  with  a  good  deal  of 
contempt.  He  went  as  far  East  as  York,  Maine, 
and  left  New  England  by  way  of  Northampton,  the 
Connecticut  Valley  and  New  Haven.  Wherever  he 
stopped,  even  for  a  few  hours,  he  preached  to  im- 
mense audiences,  and  with  marked  effect.  He  re- 
mained in  New  England  about  five  weeks.  In 
December  of  the  same  year  Gilbert  Tennent  came  to 
Boston  where  he  spent  the  winter,  till  March,  1741, 
in  evangelistic  work.  In  the  spring  of  that  year  he 
preached  in  many  places  in  Connecticut.  At  the 
same  time  many  pastors  of  churches,  among  them 
Edwards  and  Bellamy,  preached  as  itinerants,  being 
invited  to  various  towns.  Later  some  persons,  prom- 
inently James  Davenport,  gave  themselves  up  to 
itinerant  work.  Preaching  of  this  kind,  though 
opposed  by  civil  authority  in  Connecticut,  and  by 
several  ecclesiastical  associations,  continued  into  1743. 
The  history  of  this  Great  Awakening  is  before 
the  world  in  Tracy's  work  of  that  name,  and  in 
more  general  histories,  like  Walker's  "  Congrega- 
tionalists ''  in  the  American  Church  History  Series. 
It  is  referred  to  here  merely  to  bring  to  view  the 
partisan  feeling  with  which  it  was  attended.  A^Hbether 
the  revival  movement  should  be  promoted  or  re- 
pressed was  the  question.  There  were  few  who  did 
not  admit  that  great  good  had  been  accomplished  by 


38  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

it ;  all  admitted  that  in  certain  places  great  evil  had 
followed.  There  was  an  overwhelming  conviction 
that  some  of  its  developments  were  to  be  deplored. 
No  one  would  now  question  that  the  Great  Awak- 
ening was  one  of  the  most  memorable  events  in  New 
England  history,  yet  different  estimates  of  its  value 
are  still  made  by  historians.  While  it  was  in  progress 
doubts,  hopes,  fears,  disapprobation  were  inevitable. 

Whitefield's  preaching  was  of  such  a  moving 
character  that  many  wept  and  some  fainted.  As 
the  reports  of  revival  interest  spread  through  the 
land  the  feelings  of  the  people  were  much  aroused ; 
their  susceptibilities  became  excitable,  and  in  public 
services  often  uncontrollable.  When  the  terrors  of 
the  law  were  presented  and  the  dangers  of  an  un- 
godly life  were  portrayed,  men  and  women  cried 
out,  fainted,  swooned  and  fell  prostrate.  After  a 
time  such  occurrences  were  considered  by  some  as 
an  important  part  of  the  exercises.  They  were 
interpreted  to  be  the  immediate  effect  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  the  signs  of  his  presence  and  co-operation. 

Occasionally  impulses  of  the  Spirit,  so  called, 
that  is,  suggestions,  visions,  exclamations,  narrations 
of  experiences  were  so  commingled  that  religious 
services  became  confused  babblings.  Were  such 
things  to  be  tolerated  because  of  the  good  that 
accompanied  them?  or,  if  not  tolerated  themselves, 
was  the  risk  of  their  occurrence  to  be  tolerated  ? 

In  1742,  Edwards  published  an  elaborate  defense 
of  the  revival  under  the  title,  "Thoughts  on  the 
Eevival  in  New  England."  This  treatise  was  pub- 
lished before  the  most  objectionable   demonstrations 


OCCASION  OF  ITS  DEVELOPMENT.  39 

appeared.  Very  little  can  be  said  in  opposition  to 
his  statements,  but  he  nowhere  brings  under  notice 
the  things  which  his  opponents  most  severely  criti- 
cised. Few  would  now  deny  that  he  was  right  in 
considering  it  a  wonderful  work  of  God,  right  as 
to  the  obligation  to  promote  it,  as  to  the  injustice 
done  to  some  of  its  zealous  promoters,  and  certainly 
he  was  right  as  to  the  things  to  be  corrected,  and 
as  to  the  means  to  be  adopted  in  promoting  it. 
But  this  work  of  Edwards  does  not  cover  the  entire 
ground.  He  apologized  for  outcries,  street  proces- 
sions, street  singing,  and  prolonged  sessions  of  even- 
ing meetings  in  a  way  that  carries  little  conviction 
at  the  present  time,  though  his  ideas  should  be  mod- 
ified rather  than  rejected.  His  contemporaries  must 
have  felt  that  there  was  too  much  of  Edwards  in 
the  essay.  He  Avrote  to  the  trustees  of  the  college 
at  Princeton  that  his  habit  was  "to  improve  every 
important  hint,  pursuing  the  clue  to  the  utmost.'' 
Much  as  we  admire  this  habit  of  mind,  it  is  clear 
that  it  would  introduce  much  of  the  subjective  into 
his  writings.  His  speculations  connected  with  this 
revival,  as  those  concerning  the  Millenium,  his  opin- 
ion that  the  latter  day  glory  will  begin  in  America, 
and  probably  in  New  England,  seem  to  us  pursuing 
the  clue  too  far.  They  exposed  him  to  ridicule  in 
his  own  day.  His  defense  of  the  revival  did  not 
exclude  replies,  indeed  it  was  open  to  plausible  objec- 
tions,— especially  this  one,  that  he  had  not  passed 
the  entire  case  under  review. 

This  work  of  Edwards  was  replied  to,  not  formally, 
by  Dr.  Charles  Chauncey  of  Boston,  in  1 743.     His  trea- 


40  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

tise  is  a  careful  statement  of  facts  collected  from  every 
part  of  New  England,  with  such  inferences  and  suggest- 
ions as  flow  from  them.  Chauncey  adopts  almost  ver- 
batim the  main  heads  of  Edwards'  treatise  as  the  main 
heads  of  his  own.  And  it  must  be  admitted  that 
he  establishes  satisfactorily  inferences  and  estimates 
of  the  work  precisely  opposite  to  those  of  Edwards. 
He  does  this,  of  course,  by  bringing  forward  facts 
which  Edwards  had  omitted,  of  many  of  which  he 
was  probably  ignorant.  A  single  extract  from 
Chauncey's  work,  "  Seasonable  Thoughts  on  the  State 
of  Religion  in  New  England,'^  will  show  the  charac- 
ter of  those  proceedings  which  he  condemned. 

"  A  friend  in  the  country,  in  a  letter  to  me,  upon 
these  matters,  expresses  himself  in  these  words  :  ^Un- 
der the  preaching  and  exhortations  of  these  itinerants 
and  exhorters,  it  is  no  unusual  thing  for  persons  to  be 
plunged  into  the  utmost  anxiety  and  distress,  which 
is  often  attended  with  a  trembling  of  the  body,  faint- 
ing, falling  down,  etc.  The  preacher  now  frequently 
grows  more  tempestuous,  and  dreadful  in  his  manner 
of  address,  and  seems  to  endeavor  all  he  can  to  in- 
crease and  spread  the  consternation,  and  terrors  of 
their  souls,  which,  by  this  means,  is  sometimes  spread 
over  a  great  part  of  the  assembly,  in  a  few  minutes 
from  the  first  appearance.  I  have  seen  the  struck 
(as  they  are  called)  and  distressed,  brought  together 
from  the  several  parts  of  the  assembly,  into  the  square 
body  by  themselves,  and  two  or  three  persons  at  work 
upon  them  at  once,  smiting,  stamping  and  crying  out 
to  them  with  a  mighty  voice,  in  the  most  terrible 
manner  and  language,  the  poor  creatures  fainting, 
screeching  and  bitterly  crying  out  under  them.' ''  ^ 

1.     p.  91. 


OCCASION  OF  ITS    DEVELOPMENT.  41 

Scenes  like  this,  and  others  still  less  decorous,  Dr. 
Chauncey  says,  were  common,  were  witnessed  in  many 
towns.  Gratherings  took  place  in  churches  and  in 
private  houses  which  were  prolonged  hour  after  hour, 
far  into  the  night,  and  which  were  repeated  day  after 
day,  in  some  places  for  eight  or  ten  days.  He  pre- 
sents the  worst  features  of  this  religious  movement, 
confessedly,  for  he  desires  to  show  the  evils  with 
which  it  may  be  charged.  He  is,  however,  strongly 
supported  by  testimonials  coming  from  college  facul- 
ties and  from  various  ecclesiastical  associations  both 
in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  Tracy  in  his 
'^  Great  Awakening,^'  gives  the  following  extract  from 
a  paper  adopted  by  an  Association  of  Ministers,  con- 
vened at  Weymouth,  January  15,    1745. 

"  We  are  free  to  acknowledge  that  some  of  us,  a  few 
years  ago,  pleased  ourselves  with  the  hopeful  prospect  of 
a  happy  state  of  the  church.  But,  alas,  the  many  sad 
effects  of  an  enthusiastic,  erroneous  and  divisive  spirit, 
Avhich  have  appeared  since,  chiefly  promoted  by  Mr. 
Whitefiekrs  itinerancy,  and  the  other  gentlemen  who 
followed  his  steps,  now  afford  melancholy  proof  that 
this  judgment  was  formed  too  suddenly  and  upon  too 
weak  evidence.  ^^1 

This  is  mildly  adverse  when  compared  with  many 
resolutions  adopted  by  similar  bodies. 

Notwithstanding  the  many  testimonies  unfavorable 
to  the  revival,  it  is  probable  that  gross  disorders  were 
the  exception,  not  the  rule.  From  the  same  source 
we  learn  that  a  considerable  number  of  ministers  met 
at  Boston  and  adopted  a  paper  to  be  sent  out  to  the 

1.    p.  358. 


42  NEW   ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

churches  under  the  title  "  The  Testimony  and  Advice 
of  an  Assembly  of  Pastors  of  Churches  in  New  Eng- 
land, at  a  meeting  in  Boston,  July  7,  1743,  occasioned 
by  the  late  happy  Revival  of  Religion  in  many  parts 
of  the  Land."  After  a  statement  of  their  reasons 
for  considering  the  revival  a  marked  work  of  divine 
grace,  they  say  : 

"And  now,  we  desire  to  bow  the  knee  to  the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  That 
our  eyes  have  seen  and  our  ears  have  heard  such 
things.  And  while  these  are  our  sentiments,  we 
must  necessarily  be  grieved  at  any  accounts  sent 
abroad  representing  this  work  as  all  enthusiasm, 
delusion  and  disorder."  "  The  number  of  signers  at 
the  meeting  was  sixty-eight ;  attestors  by  letter  forty- 
five."  1 

Rev.  Mr.  Prince,  Scribe  of  the  meeting,  reported : 

"That  very  few  of  the  ministers  present  at  the 
late  venerable  assembly,  complained  of  errors  or  dis- 
orders in  the  parishes  they  oelonged  to." 

Some  had  no  trouble  from  the  beginning ;  some  had 
to  meet  certain  irregularities  at  the  first,  but  found  little 
difficulty  in  repressing  them ;  and  the  general  testimony 
was : 

"The  greatest  errors  and  disorders  were  in  those 
places  where  the  ministers  opposed  the  work,  and 
thereby  lost  much  of  their  respect  and  influence."  ^ 

Chauncey's  work  is  valuable  in  that  it  shows  that 
the  chief  excesses  of  the  revival  were  not  to  be  traced 

1.    Tracy's  "  Great  Awakening,"  pp.  294-303. 
2.    pp. 


OCCASION  OF  ITS  DEVELOPMENT.  43 

to  Whitefield  and  Tennent.  The  sad  antics  of  1743 
occurred  in  connection  with  the  preaching  of  Daven- 
port and  his  special  companions.  Whitefield  thought 
favorably  of  Davenj)ort,  but  did  not  know  liim 
thoroughly.  Chauncey  shows  that  he  was  familiar 
with  religious  sentiments  like  those  developed  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  revival  period,  ten  years  before  these 
public  demonstrations.  Five  persons  are  mentioned 
as  belonging  to  a  club,  while  students  in  Yale  Col- 
lege, under  the  lead  of  David  Ferris,  a  fanatical 
Quaker  from  New  Milford.  These  were  Pomroy, 
Wheelock,  Allen,  Davenport  and  Bliss.  These  names 
will  be  recognized  as  connected  more  or  less  intimately 
with  the  excitements  of  the  revival,  but  not  with 
such  results  as  to  exclude  them  from  positions  of 
usefulness  and  influence  in  after  days. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  Great  Awaken- 
ing was  the  immediate  source  of  New  England  The- 
ology, either  as  suggesting  its  doctrines  or  as  the  occa- 
sion of  their  expression.  President  Edwards  did  not 
publish  his  treatise  on  the  Will,  till  twelve  years 
after  his  Thoughts  on  the  Revival  were  given  to  the 
world.  Hopkins  did  not  publish  his  essays  in  oppo- 
sition to  Moderate  Calvinism,  till  more  than  twenty 
years  after  the  revival.  But  the  revival  established 
party  lines,  and  gave  each  side  occasion  to  emphasize 
its  peculiar  views.  It  set  pens  in  motion  and  led 
many  to  commit  themselves  to  sentiments  aftenvards 
more  elaborately  defended.  Chauncey  and  liis  asso- 
ciates could  not  but  affirm  or  imply  that  the  use  of 
the  ordinary  means  of  grace  is  the  safest  method  of 
religious    instruction.      Edwards,    in    discussing    the 


44  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

question,  "What  must  be  done  more  directly  to  ad- 
vance this  work/'  mentioned  as  one  thing,  renouncing 
Arminianism.  He  probably  included  in  this  term 
all  forms  of  belief  that  admit  of  indolent  waiting  in 
connection  with  religious  duties.  He  thought  none 
but  a  deist  could  fail  to  consider  a  revival  a  work  of 
God.      He  says : 

"Now  is  a  good  time  for  Arminians  to  change 
their  principles.  I  would  now,  as  one  of  the  friends 
of  this  worlk,  humbly  invite  them  to  come  and  join 
with  us,  and  be  on  our  side.'' 

Indeed,  from  the  revival  of  1735,  to  his  dismission 
from  the  pastorate  in  1750,  his  mind  was  incessantly  oc- 
cupied with  questions  concerning  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  after  the  revival  of  1740,  he  was  continually 
compelled  to  discriminate  between  his  own  views  and 
those  of  its  fanatical  promotors.  In  1738,  he  gave 
a  series  of  lectures  on  "  Divine  Love,"  probably  in- 
tended for  publication,  but  which  were  not  given  to 
the  public  till  1851.  His  aim  in  this  work  is  spec- 
ially to  emphasize  the  divine  origin  of  Christian 
aifection.  In  1742,  he  published  his  "Thoughts  on 
the  Kevival,"  a  treatise  already  referred  to;  in  1746 
he  published  his  great  work  on  the  "Affections,"  a 
work  which  shows  that  his  views  upon  psychology 
were  ripening,  while  essentially  the  same  as  when 
he  wrote  the  "Divine  I^ove."  In  1749,  he  published 
his  "  Humble  Inquiry  Concerning  the  Qualifications 
for  Full  Communion,"  an  essay  having  as  an  ultimate 
aim  the  undermining  of  the  half-way  covenant  scheme 
— which  might  really  be  said  of  all  the  above   no- 


OCCASION  OF  ITS  DEVELOPMENT.  45 

ticed  treatises, — and  iu  his  "  Farewell  Discourse/'  he 


"Another  thing  that  mostly  concerns  the  future 
prosperity  of  this  town,  is,  that  you  should  watch 
against  the  encroachment  of  error,  and  particularly 
Arminianism,  and  doctrines  of  like  tendency.  You 
were,  many  of  you,  as  I  w^ell  remember,  much  alarmed 
with  the  apprehension  of  the  danger  of  the  prevailing 
of  those  corrupt  principles,  near  sixteen  years  a^o. 
But  the  danger  then  was  small  in  comparison  with 
what  appears  now.  These  doctrines  at  this  day  are 
much  more  prevalent  than  they  were  then ;  the  pro- 
gress they  have  made  in  the  land,  within  this  seven 
years  (since  the  revival,  1743),  seems  to  have  been 
vastly  greater  than  at  any  time  in  the  like  space  before. '' 

That  the  revival  had  roused  inquiries  which  are 
associated  with  New  England  Theology  and  which 
foreshadowed  some  of  the  more  distinguishing  doc- 
trines of  Hopkinsianism,  is  manifest  in  many  ways. 
We  may  notice  as  indicating  the  drift  of  thought, 
these  entries  in  the  private  journal  of  the  Rev.  Eben- 
ezer  Parkman,  quoted  by  Tracy.  June  8,  1742,  he 
notes : 

"Mr.  Wheeler,  at  evening,  opposing  my  doc- 
trine from  Eph.  5:14, — that  the  natural  man  can  do 
nothing  but  what  is  sinful.'^  June  loth — "I  asked 
advice  respecting  the  doctrine  I  had  lately  delivered 
from  Eph.  5:14,  and  Rom.  8:8,  and  on  that  question — 
are  there  not  some  promises  made  to  humble,  fervent 
strivers,  that  they  shall  obtain  the  grace  of  God?"^ 

These  and  similar  topics  were  discussed  by  others 
in  the  years  immediately  succeeding  the  revival. 

1.    Great  Awakening,  pp.  208;  313. 


CHAPTER    11. 

EDWAEDEANISM   IN   NEW   ENGLAND   THEOLOGY. 

The  life  and  character  of  President  Edwards  are 
too  well  known  to  require  extended  remark.  The 
following  succinct  statements  are  taken  from  Pro- 
fessor Moses  Coit  Tyler's  History  of  American 
Literature  : 

*^  Jonathan  Edwards,  the  most  original  and  acute 
thinker  yet  produced  in  America,  was  born  at  East 
Windsor,  Conn.,  in  1703  ;  was  graduated  at  Yale 
College  in  1720;  was  a  preacher  in  New  York 
for  about  eight  months  prior  to  April,  1723  ;  was 
tutor  in  Yale  College  from  the  summer  of  1724 
until  the  summer  of  1726;  in  1727  became  pastor 
of  the  church  at  Northampton,  and  so  continued 
until  1750;  from  1751  until  1758  was  missionary 
to  the  Indians  near  Stockbridge ;  on  the  sixteenth 
of  February,  1758,  was  installed  as  president  of  the 
College  of  New  Jersey,  and  died  a  few  weeks  after- 
ward, namely,  on  the  twenty-second  of  March."  ^ 

Edwards'  position  in  the  history  of  the  American 
Churches,  his  intellectual  capacities  and  his  interest  in 
the  welfare  of  his  fellow  men  combined  to  give  him  a 
most  marked  influence  over  our  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

1.    Tyler's  History  of  American  Literature,  II,  p.  177. 


EDWAKDEANISM.  47 

To  say  that  he  was  possessed  of  a  mind  of  the 
first  order  would  be  but  a  weak  assertion  of  the 
truth.  His  processes  of  thinking  had  an  affinity 
with  the  truths  of  theology,  of  philosophy,  of  nature 
that  has  excited  the  astonishment  of  all  who  have 
come  to  an  appreciation  of  his  powers.  His  indus- 
try was  as  remarkable  as  his  abilities.  He  studied 
with  his  pen  in  hand  and  wrote  do^vn  his  thoughts 
for  future  reference,  and  in  this  way  amassed  an 
amount  of  manuscript  that  would  fill  volumes.  It 
is  reported  that  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins,  who  may  be 
said  to  have  been  the  trustee  of  his  writings,  some 
of  which  he  edited  and  published,  spent  six  years  in 
the  study  of  these  documents.  But  Edwards  with 
all  his  fondness  for  study  and  his  habits  as  a  recluse, 
was  a  man  for  the  times.  He  kept  himself  informed 
as  to  the  political  and  scientific  progress  of  the  world, 
and  especially  allowed  no  important  religious  move- 
ment to  escape  his  notice.  The  historian  Bancroft 
said  : 

"He  that  will  know  the  workings  of  the  mind 
of  Xew  England  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century, 
and  the  throbbings  of  its  heart,  must  give  his  days 
and  nights  to  the  study  of  Jonathan  Edwards.'' 

In  theology  he  may  be  said  to  have  accepted, 
absorbed  and  embodied  the  best  thinking  of  his 
time.  He  adopted  the  creed  of  his  denomination 
and  in  a  general  way  adhered  to  it  through  life. 
His  speculations,  however,  led  him  to  enlarge  and 
modify  some  views  of  truth,  and  so  to  introduce 
some  changes  into  the  current  theology.  He  thought 
it   necessary  to  set     forth   some    new   statements   in 


48  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

order  to  defend  the  main  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  but 
the  modifications  he  introduced  were  for  the  sake  of 
that  which  is  old  rather  than  for  anything  new.  He 
was  the  representative  of  the  old  theology  in  his 
attempt  to  rid  it  of  the  deteriorations  caused  by  the 
Arian  and  Arminian  tendencies  of  the  time ;  he  was 
the  source  of  the  "  new  divinity "  in  that  his  friends 
and  pupils,  prompted  and  guided  by  his  teachings, 
defended  and  advocated  the  scheme  of  doctrine  which 
bore  that  name.  It  has  been  questioned  whether 
Edwards  would  have  been  in  sympathy  with  those 
who  claimed  to  be  his  followers,  but  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that,  whatever  he  might  have  thought  of 
certain  doctrines  of  the  new  divinity,  historically  a 
new  period  begins  with  him.  The  early  theology 
of  New  England  has  not  had  a  complete,  unbroken 
sway  since  his  day ;  later  New  England  theology, 
so  far  as  it  is  recognized  as  orthodox  and  evangeli- 
cal, points  back  to  him  as  the  radiating  centre.  No 
one  can  study  the  course  of  religious  thought  in  New 
England  without  feeling  that  he  marks  an  epoch. 
Beyond  him  we  perceive  something  of  the  atmosphere 
of  antiquity,  on  the  hither  side  we  are  conscious  of 
the  freshness  of  recent  thought.  A  study  of  the 
scheme  of  theology  that  appropriates  the  title  New 
Englandj  properly  begins,  therefore,  with  its  Ed- 
wardean  elements. 

No  one  of  the  leaders  in  this  school  was  ambi- 
tious to  found  a  system  to  be  called  by  his  own 
name,  but  each  gave  the  world  the  result  of  his  specu- 
lations in  order  to  meet  an  emergency  of  the  times, 
to  oppose   error,  or  to  advocate  an  important  truth. 


EDWAEDEANISM.  49 

Edwards  ^^Tote  in  response  to  the  demands  of  his 
day,  without  any  presentiment  of  the  fact  that  he 
was  opening  the  way  for  Hopkinsianism  and  yet 
other  and  later  doctrinal  schemes.  Still  it  was  his 
freedom  of  thought,  his  philosophical  principles,  his 
religious  fervor  and  his  anxiety  to  see  new  life  infused 
into  the  churches  of  the  country,  that  gave  the  im- 
petus to  that  thinking,  which  after  a  slow  develop- 
ment appeared  as  the  New  England  scheme.  Pie 
was  not  wholly  in  sympathy  with  the  times  in  which 
he  lived,  but  in  many  ways  moved  athwart  the  cur- 
rent of  events.  On  the  other  hand  he  might  have 
stood  aghast  at  certain  results  to  which  his  innova- 
tions have  led,  but  to  us  of  this  day,  he  appears 
more  in  accord  mth  those  later  called  "  new  lights," 
than  with  their  opponents. 

If  we  arrange  his  w^orks  as  a  reformer  under 
three  heads  we  shall  have  in  a  comprehensible  form 
his  part  in  the  new  theology.  He  eflPected  changes 
in  practical  theology,  in  current  metaphysical  specu- 
lations, and  in  doctrinal  theology.  It  is  not  intend- 
ed that  he  introduced  anything  absolutely  new  in 
these  departments,  but  that  he  effected  changes  in 
the  habits  and  views  of  his  contemporaries  and  suc- 
cessors. 


PKACTICAL    THEOLOGY. 

1.  He  held  to  the  duty  of  immediate  and  ener- 
getic effort  in  seeking  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 
A  common   doctrine,  as    has    been    already   noticed, 


50  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

was  that  those  who  put  themselves  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  means  of  grace,  will  in  due  time, 
probably  be  brought  into  the  Kingdom  of  God; 
he  urged  his  hearers  to  press  into  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  Taking  the  Kingdom  by  violence  was  a 
favorite  expression  with  him.  Still  he  did  not 
formulate  the  doctrine  which  his  successors  educed 
from  his  teaching,  that  every  man  has  the  power 
on  the  instant  to  change  his  heart  and  be  a  fol- 
lower of  Christ.  He  accepted  the  current  view  of 
regeneration  so  far  as  the  process  is  concerned,  and 
urged  the  impenitent  to  take  such  a  position  that 
the  grace  of  God  would  probably  reach  them;  he 
did  not,  like  the  Hopkinsians,  urge  them  to  save 
themselves.      He  addressed  his  audience  in  this  way : 

"Though  God  has  not  bound  himself  to  anything 
that  a  person  does  while  destitute  of  faith,  and  out 
of  Christ,  yet  there  is  a  great  probability  that  in 
a  way  of  hearkening  to  his  counsel  you  will  live; 
and  that  by  pressing  onward  and  persevering,  you 
will  at  last,  as  it  were  by  violence,  take  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Those  of  you  who  have  not  only 
,heard  the  directions  given,  but  shall  through  God^s 
merciful  assistance,  practice  according  to  them,  are 
those  that  probably  will  overcome.'' 
..."  God  IS  pleased  at  this  time,  in  a  very  remark- 
able manner,  to  pour  out  his  spirit  amongst  us ;  (glory 
be  to  his  name  !)  You  that  have  a  mind  to  obtain 
converting  grace  and  go  to  heaven  when  you  die, 
now  is  your  season !  Now,  if  you  have  any  sort 
of  prudence  for  your  own  salvation,  and  have  not  a 
mind  to  go  to  hell,  improve  this  season !  Now  is 
the  accepted   time  V^ 

..."  How  much  more  easily  converting  grace  is  ob- 
tained  at   such    a   time,  than  at  other  times!    The 


EDWARDEANISM.  51 

work  is  equally  easy  with  God  at  all  times ;  but 
there  is  far  less  difficulty  in  the  way  as  to  men  at 
such  a  time,  than  at  other  times.  It  is,  as  I  said 
before,  a  day  of  God's  gracious  visitation ;  a  day 
that  he  has,  as  it  were,  set  apart  for  the  more  lib- 
erally and  bountifully  dispensing  of  his  grace  ;  a  day 
wherein  God\s  hand  is  openea  wide.  Experience 
shows  it." 

These  extracts  from  a  sermon,  "  Pressing  into  the 
Kingdom  of  God,''  preached  in  the  revival  of  1735, 
indicate  a  spirit  very  different  from  the  then  preva- 
lent Arminianism,  and  show  that  even  in  our  day, 
many  conservative  teachers  would  look  upon  him  as 
an  enthusiast  and  something  of  an  innovator. 

2.  A  later  development,  but  one  accompanied  with 
more  serious  consequences,  was  his  view  concerning 
full  church-membership.  The  half-Avay  covenant 
scheme  had  accustomed  the  minds  of  the  people  to  a 
somewhat  intimate  connection  of  the  unregenerate 
with  the  church.  Mr.  Stoddard,  the  predecessor  of 
Edwards  at  Northampton,  had  strongly  advocated 
receiving  the  unregenerate  to  full  communion,  on  the 
ground  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  converting  ordin- 
ance. Edwards,  in  the  early  years  of  his  pastorate, 
accepted  the  practice  of  his  church  and  admitted 
members  to  its  fellowship  in  the  customary  way. 
He  had  misgivings  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  prac- 
tice, but  continued  it  while  he  was  carefully  studying 
the  subject.  He  at  length  became  convinced  that 
church  fellowship  required  acceptance  of  the  doctrines 
of  grace  by  the  heart  as  well  as  by  the  intellect;  or 
that  visible  saints  must  have  the  appearance  of  real 
conversion  to  God  as  well  as  of  real  conviction  of 


52  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

the  truth  of  the  gospel.  He  made  known  his  views 
somewhat  publicly  after  his  mind  became  fully  set- 
tled, but  no  great  disturbance  followed  till  a  young 
man  came  to  him  and  proposed  to  join  the  church. 
The  requirement  of  a  more  explicit  profession  of 
godliness  than  had  been  previously  demanded  raised 
a  great  ferment  in  the  town,  and,  combined  with 
other  causes  of  dissatisfaction,  led  to  the  dismission 
of  Edwards  from  the  parish.  During  the  commotion 
over  the  pastor's  change  of  views  he  wrote  his  essay 
on  the  terms  of  communion.  He  was  not  permitted 
to  preach  on  the  subject  before  his  people,  and  was 
compelled  to  resort  to  the  press  in  self-defence. 
The  treatise  is  a  very  thorough  argumentation  of  the 
case,  mostly  from  the  Scriptures.  The  title  of  the 
work  describes  it  very  fully:  "An  Humble  Inquiry 
into  the  Rules  of  the  Word  of  God  concerning  the 
Qualifications  requisite  to  a  Complete  Standing  and 
Full  Communion  in  the  Visible  Christian  Church.'' 
This  was  laid  before  his  church  and  the  public  in 
October,  1749,  but  it  had  no  effect  to  stay  the  ex- 
citement of  the  parish  and  he  was  dismissed  in  the 
following  June.  Though  he  was  unable  to  save 
himself  from  impending  disaster,  he  did  much  to- 
wards rescuing  the  churches  from  laxity  of  doctrine 
and  consequent  laxity  of  discipline.  He  did  more 
than  any  one  else  to  establish  the  New  England 
doctrine  on  this  point. 

Edwards'  "Humble  Inquiry"  was  written  avow- 
edly in  opposition  to  Stoddardism,  but  it  has 
sometimes  been  said  that  he  has  nowhere  committed 
himself  in  opposition  to  the  half-way  covenant.      It 


EDWAKDEANISM.  53 

is  clear,  however,  that  his  judgment  was  in  decided 
opposition  to  this  scheme.  He  argues  that  exchi- 
ding  the  children  of  the  unregenerate  from  baptism 
would  not  have  a  tendency  to  promote  irreligion  and 
profaneness,  because  it  does  not  shut  them  out  from 
access  to  Christian  privileges,  but  is  simply  declining 
to  bestow  honors  and  badges  where  there  is  no 
claim.  Refusing  to  bestow  such  honors  would  rather 
rouse  parents  and  children  to  a  discharge  of  their 
neglected  duties. 

The  first  topic.  Practical  Theology,  is  not  one 
which  requires  prolonged  study.  The  practice  of 
NcAV  England  is  now  settled,  and  has  been  settled 
without  discussion  involving  metaphysical  distinctions, 
except  that  the  method  of  addressing  the  impenitent 
has  elicited  some  philosophical  debates,  to  be  noticed 
hereafter. 

II. 

METAPHYSICS. 

Edwards  was  unsurpassed  in  the  power  of  acute 
original  speculation.  He  would  have  been  the  peer 
of  the  great  German  or  great  Greek  philosophers  if 
he  had  made  study  in  this  department  the  work  of 
his  life.  What  he  has  left  us  that  might  bear  the 
name  of  Edwards'  philosophy  would  have  been  of 
greater  value  if  he  had  given  more  time  to  adjust- 
ment of  parts  and  harmonizing  of  views  taken  from 
diiferent  standpoints.  He  wrote  much,  pursuing 
each  clue  to  the  utmost,  it  may  be  inferred,  without 
the  closest  regard  to  the  educts  from  other  clues.      If 


54  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

he  had  been  the  editor  of  his  own  works  their  worth 
would  have  been  increased. 

There  are  two  topics  requiring  notice  in  a  study 
of  New  England  Theology,  which  he  has  treated  in 
a  metaphysical  way,  viz :    Theism  and  Virtue. 

1.  Theism.  We  are  obliged  to  present  his  views 
of  Deity  through  inferences  rather  than  any  formal 
statements,  for  he  wrote  for  practical  purposes,  but 
so  far  as  we  need  to  pursue  the  subject  the  underly- 
ing and  implied  ideas  are  in  no  way  obscure.  He 
says  that  Space  is  God,  and  implies  that  Being  is 
God,  in  its  ultimate  idea.      He  says  : 

"  To  find  out  the  reasons  of  things  in  natural 
philosophy  is  only  to  find  out  the  proportion  of 
God^s  acting.  And  the  case  is  the  same  as  to  such 
proportions,  whether  we  suppose  the  world  only 
mental,  in  our  sense,  or  no.'^^ 

This  means  that  all  natural  phenomena  are  an 
immediate  activity  of  God,  whether,  as  known  to  us, 
they  are  subjective  or  objective.  These  are  youth- 
ful speculations,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  his 
views  were  essentially  changed  in  later  life.  When 
at  the  height  of  his  mental  vigor  he  said : 

"  I  do  suppose  there  is  a  great  absurdity  in  the 
nature  of  things  simply  considered  in  supposing  that 
there  should  be  no  God,  or  in  denying  Being  in 
general,  and  supposing  an  eternal,  absolute,  universal 
nothing ;  and  therefore  that  here  would  be  founda- 
tion of  intuitive  evidence  that  it  cannot  be ;  and 
that  eternal,  infinite,  most  perfect  Being  must  be ; 
if  we  had  strength  and  comprehension  of  mind  suffi- 

1    Dwight's  Memoir,  p.  669. 


EDWAKDEANISM.  55 

cient  to  have  a  clear  idea  of  general  and  universal 
Being,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  of  the  infinite, 
eternal,  most  perfect  Divine  Nature  and  Essence/^  ^ 

That  we  should  see  an  eternal,  most  perfect  Being 
by  seeing  Being  in  general,  seems  like  making  God 
the  One  and  All.  He  has  given  us  his  conception 
of  the  Deity  in  his  treatise  on  the  End  for  which 
God  created  the  world.  He  says  the  last  end  in  the 
creation  is  God's  glory,  or  more  fully  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  glory.  He  begins  with  the  idea  that 
God  exists  in  all  the  fulness  of  perfections,  with  a 
disposition  to  manifest  his  perfections.  If  power  is 
a  good,  it  is  because  there  is  a  possibility  of  its  pro- 
ducing an  effect ;  and  if  the  possibility  of  producing 
an  effect  is  good,  then  the  actuality  of  the  effect  is 
good.  There  is  a  kind  of  multiplying  of  these 
excellences  in  their  manifestation.  This  diffusive 
disposition  of  God  is  the  basis  of  the  creation.  In 
the  creation  God  diffuses  himself  into  outward  mani- 
festation. "  His  propensity  to  diffuse  himself  is  a 
propensity  to  himself  diffused."  God's  internal  glory 
is  his  understanding  and  his  will.  His  external 
glory  is  the  emanation  of  his  internal  glory.  When 
he  communicates  his  excellence  to  men  he  imparts 
to  the  understanding  a  knowledge  of  himself,  and  to 
the  will  holiness,  which  is  a  love  of  himself,  and 
happiness,  which  is  a  joy  in  himself. 

"  In  the  creature's  knowing,  esteeming,  loving, 
rejoicing  in  and  praising  God,  the  glory  of  God  is 
both  exhibited    and    acknowledged ;     his    fulness    is 

1.     II,  p.  27. 
The  references  to  Edwards'  works  are  to  the  four  volume  edition. 


56  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

received  and  returned.  Here  is  both  an  emanation 
and  a  renianation.  The  refulgence  shines  upon  and 
into  the  creature,  and  is  reflected  back  to  the  lumi- 
nary/^ 1 

We  are  not  to  suppose  from  the  representation, 
that  an  effulgence  shines  upon  the  creature;  that  the 
creature  had  a  previous  existence  of  a  different  kind 
from  the  emanation  here  spoken  of.  We  are  to 
consider  rather  that  the  entire  creation  —  emanation  of 
the  light,  the  creature  receiving  and  reflecting  the 
light — is  one  simple  and  continuous  act  of  God.  He 
says : 

"  God's  upholding  created  substance,  or  causing 
its  existence  in  each  successive  moment  is  altogether 
equivalent  to  an  immediate  production  out  of  nothing 
at  each  moment.  Because  its  existence  at  each 
moment  is  not  merely  in  part  from  God,  but  wholly 
from  him,  and  not  in  any  part  or  degree  from  its 
antecedent  existence. '^  ^ 

This  view  of  Edwards  has  sometimes  been  spoken 
of  as  rigid  divine  sovereignty,  but  it  might  more 
properly  be  designated  the  prevalence  of  the  Infinite 
Will.  However  he  may  have  fallen  into  language 
implying  the  relation  of  Ruler  and  subject  in  the  use 
of  such  terms  as  covenant  and  promise,  his  favorite 
sentiment  was,  that  God's  activity  is  from  himself  and 
to  himself,  an  independent  and  uninterrupted  realiz- 
ing of  his  own  will. 

2.  Virtue.  Edwards'  speculations  on  this  topic 
and  the  kindred  one  —  God's  Last  End  in  the  Creation 
— are  purely  methaphysical.      If  there  is  any  exception 

1.    II.  p.  255.  3.    n.  p.  489. 


EDWARDEANISM.  57 

to  this  statement  in  regard  to  virtue,  it  is  due,  prob- 
ably to  emendations  suggested  by  friends  to  whom  he 
read  the  essay.  His  statements  upon  the  main 
question  are  abstract,  and  his  ideas  objective.  Subjec- 
tive excellence  as  exhibited  in  character  seems  hardly 
to  have  entered  his  mind.  He  writes  concerning  true 
virtue,  godliness,  holiness,  but  there  could  hardly  be 
a  greater  contrast  between  two  pieces  of  composition 
than  that  between  this  essay  and  some  of  the  closing 
parts  of  Paul's  epistles,  for  example,  the  fifth  and 
sixth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 

His  question  is.  What  is  virtue?  or.  What  is  the 
primal  virtue  ?  or.  In  what  does  virtue  begin  ?  Suppose 
there  were  no  virtue  in  existence  and  the  time  of  its 
entrance  into  being  were  come,  what  would  be  the 
first  virtue?  He  makes  it  accord  with  Being  in 
general,  i.  e.,  Being  as  a  whole.  His  study  of  this 
subject  began  in  his  college  days,  and  his  thoughts 
are  akin  to  his  views  of  Being  as  necessary,  of 
Nothing  as  an  absurdity,  of  God  as  the  sum  of 
Being,  including  even  space.  If  at  any  time  God 
existed  alone  his  virtue  would  be  his  agreement 
with,  his  accord  with,  himself.  Since  virtue  is  a 
quality  of  a  moral  being,  it  is  an  exercise  of  the 
heart,  and  accord  of  heart  with  Being  in  general  is 
love  of  Being  in  general,  or  love  of  Being  simply 
considered.  It  is  the  love  of  Being  not  for  its 
qualities  but  simply  as  an  existence.  Considered  as 
benevolence  it  is  absolute  benevolence,  or  a  disposi- 
tion to  love  Being  in  general,  the  disposition  being 
a  primal  fact,  not  called  out  by  any  special  occasion. 

^'  It    is   that    consent,    propensity    and  union    of 


58  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

heart  to  Being  in  general,  that  is  inunediately  exer- 
cised in  a  general  good  will."  ^ 

This  statement  carefully  interpreted  carries  the 
entire  doctrine  with  it.  We  have  at  the  outset  a 
general  good  will,  i.  e.,  a  will  favorably  disposed  to 
things  in  general,  the  whole  of  existence,  and  when 
Being  simple  is  presented  before  it  the  good  will 
embraces  it  immediately,  i,  e.,  without  any  medium, 
in  a  union  of  heart  with  it. 

Edwards'  view  of  virtue  does  not  differ  essen- 
tially from  that  which  makes  it  accord  with  the 
nature  of  things.      He  says,  indeed  : 

"  And  perhaps  it  is  needless  for  me  to  give 
notice  to  my  readers,  that  when  I  speak  of  an  intel- 
ligent Being's  having  a  heart  united  and  benevolently 
disposed  to  Being  in  general,  I  thereby  mean  intel- 
ligent Being  in  general.  Not  inanimate  things,  or 
Beings  that  have  no  perception  or  will,  which  are 
not  properly  capable  objects  of  benevolence."  ^ 

This  concession  seems  not  wholly  in  keeping  with 
the  essay  taken  as  a  whole,  and  it  opens  the  way  to 
some  differences  of  view  among  his  followers,  but 
with  him  may  have  meant  no  more  than,  that  all 
things  have  their  meaning  in  the  divine  plan  and 
their  being  in  the  divine  will,  therefore  our  good 
will  is  directed  in  the  end  to  a  person  not  to  dead 
matter.  He  says  in  his  essay  on  the  End  for  which 
God  created  the  world,  in  which  he  makes  creation 
an  emanation  : 

"  Among  created  beings   one   single   person  must 

1.    II.  p.    262.  2.    II.  p.  263. 


EDWAKDEANISM.  59 

be  looked  upon  as  inconsiderable  in  comparison  of 
the  generality  ;  and  so  his  interest  as  of  little  im- 
portance compared  with  the  interest  of  the  whole 
system ;  therefore  in  them,  a  disposition  to  prefer 
self,  as  if  it  w^ere  more  than  all,  is  exceeding  vicious. 
But  it  is  vicious  on  no  other  account  than  as  it  is  a 
disposition  that  does  not  agree  with  the  nature  of 
things ;  and  that  which  is  indeed  the  greatest  good. 
And  a  disposition  in  any  one  to  forego  his  own  in- 
terest for  the  sake  of  others,  is  no  further  excellent, 
no  further  worthy  the  name  of  generosity  than  it  is 
a  treating  tilings  according  to  their  true  value."  ^ 

He  argues  that  virtue  must  be  love  of  Being  in 
general,  or.  Being  as  such,  (his  expression  is  "  Being 
simply  considered")  otherwise  there  should  be  virtue 
before  the  first  virtue ;  complacency  cannot  be  the 
primary  virtue  for  it  is  the  love  of  a  foregoing 
benevolence  which  is  a  virtue  apart  from  compla- 
cency. For  the  same  reason  gratitude  cannot  be  the 
primary  essential  virtue,  for  it  implies  the  recogni- 
tion of  a  preceding  excellence  which  is  not  gratitude. 
Being  simply,  therefore,  not  an  excellence  attributable 
to  it,  must  be  the  object  of  the  primal  virtuous  love. 
The  virtue  of  man  is  like  that  of  God.  He  loved 
Being  when  there  was  nothing  else  to  love,  before 
created  things  existed ;  man  must  have  the  same 
disposition.  And  it  must  be  love  of  Being  in  gen- 
eral, for  a  partial  love  has  not  the  perfect  beauty 
that  belongs  to  the  love  of  the  whole.  If  a  finite 
system  were  the  entire  system,  if  a  society  of  friends 
constituted  the  universe,  then  a  love  of  that  system 
would  be  virtue,  but  if  the  limited  system  is  part  of 

1.    II.  p.  215. 


60  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

a  greater  whole,  then  the  love  that  is  virtuous  must 
embrace  the  whole. 

The  evidence  that  this  love  or  benevolence  is 
virtue,  Edwards  finds  in  the  intuition  of  the  person 
whom  God  has  enlightened  so  that  he  can  discern 
the  spiritual  beauty  that  belongs  to  a  union  of  heart 
with  Being  in  general.  It  is  an  axiom  with  him 
that  virtue  is  beauty  and  the  highest  spiritual  beauty 
is  true  virtue.  He  implies  in  many  places  that  the 
virtuous  state  is  a  gift  of  God,  and  the  power  to 
discern  the  virtue  of  that  state  is  also  his  gift.  He 
denies  that  the  ordinary  powers  of  man  are  compe- 
tent to  apprehend  true  virtue.  Reason  and  con- 
science indeed  recognize  a  beauty  in  the  harmonies 
of  the  world,  a  beauty  in  the  benevolence  that  con- 
stitutes virtue,  but  do  not  appreciate  them  at  their 
true  worth.  A  spiritual  discernment,  the  result  of 
a  divine  enlightenment,  is  necessary  for  this.  Con- 
science approves  of  benevolence,  but  not  for  the 
same  reason  that  the  spiritual  sense  does,  and  can 
never  apprehend  the  nature  of  true  virtue. 

The  doctrine  that  virtue  is  benevolence  has  a 
large  place  in  New  England  Theology.  It  is  a 
dogma  that  has  been  handed  doAvn  from  one  gener- 
ation to  another  and  maintained  with  different  shades 
of  meaning  by  different  authors,  but  the  contribution 
which  Edwards  made  to  the  discussion  is  perhaps 
sufficiently  indicated  by  the  above  remarks.  Later 
discussions  of  the  doctrine  will  be  noticed  hereafter. 

It  may  be  noticed  that  this  doctrine  of  virtue  has 
met  with  very  strenuous  opposition  from  the  time  of 
the    publication   of   Edwards'    essay.      It    has   been 


EDWARDEANISM.  61 

subjected    to    both    criticism     and    ridicule    in    this 
country    and  in  Great  Britain. 

III. 

DOGMATIC    THEOLOGY. 

Edwards'  chief  work  comes  under  this  head,  and 
his  teachings  appear  in  a  polemic  form.  He  wrote 
upon  the  will  in  opposition  to  the  Arminians,  and 
upon  original  sin  in  opposition  to  the  Pelagians. 
We  notice  each  of  these  works. 

1.  The  Will.  The  full  title  of  the  work  is  : 
"  A  careful  and  strict  Inquiry  into  the  modern  pre- 
vailing notions  of  that  Freedom  of  AYill  which  is 
supposed  to  be  essential  to  moral  agency,  virtue  and 
vice,  reward  and  punishment,  praise  and  blame. ^^ 
This  is  his  most  noted  work,  and  is  by  most  people, 
but  not  by  all,  considered  his  ablest  work.  It  was 
published  in  1754.  He  had  for  years  contemplated 
writing  it,  and  had  during  his  entire  ministr}^,  been 
advocating  the  views  which  he  there  presents.  The 
full  title,  as  given  above,  indicates  that  Arminianism 
had  put  on  a  bold  front ;  it  is  a  matter  of  history 
that  Calvinism  was  under  a  cloud.  Dr.  Jonathan 
Edwards,  speaking  of  the  work  of  his  father  as  a 
theologian,  says  : 

"On  the  great  subject  of  Liberty  and  Necessity 
Mr.  Edwards  made  very  important  improvements. 
Before  him  the  Calvinists  were  nearly  driven  out  of 
the  field  by  the  Arminians,  Pelagians  and  Socinians. 
They  were  pressed  and  embarrassed  by  the  objection ; 
that  the  sense  in  which  they  interpreted  the  sacred 


62  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

writings  was  inconsistent  with  human  liberty,  moral 
agency,  accountableness,  praise  and  blame.  The 
Calvinists  themselves  began  to  be  ashamed  and  to 
give  it  up,  so  far  at  least  as  relates  to  liberty  and 
necessity.  This  was  true  especially  of  Dr.  Watts 
and  Doddridge,  who  in  their  day  were  accounted 
leaders  of  the  Calvinists."  ^ 

As  a  critique  the  work  on  the  "Will  is  unequalled. 
The  clearness  with  which  the  author  states  the 
Arminian  positions,  the  directness  and  decisiveness 
with  which  he  overthrows  them,  has  called  forth  the 
admiration  alike  of  those  who  assent  to  his  main 
doctrine  and  those  who  differ  with  him.  He  shows 
that  responsibility  does  not  rest  on  the  fact  that  we 
choose  our  choices  for  that  would  require  a  choice 
before  the  first  choice.  He  shows  that  responsibility 
cannot  rest  upon  a  freedom  that  implies  indifference 
to  the  object  chosen,  for  this  would  imply  a  choice 
Avithout  a  preference,  which  is  a  contradiction  in 
terms.  He  shows  that  a  choice  cannot  be  so  con- 
nected with  contingencies  as  to  afford  the  freedom 
on  which  responsibility  rests.  His  argument  here 
assumes  that  every  event  must  have  a  cause 
and  the  cause  produces  the  effect  by  necessity  of 
consequence.  The  objection  to  Edwards'  views  by 
his  opponents  would  be,  rather  that  he  had  not  fully 
stated  their  case  than  that  he  had  not  replied  to 
their  positions  as  he  had  stated  them.  Especially 
would  they  demur  to  his  position  on  contingent 
action.  They  held  that  the  case  of  fallen  man  is 
peculiar,  and  not  to   be  illustrated  either  by  that  of 

1.    Works  of  Edwards  the  Younger.    I.  p.  481. 


EDWAKDEANISM.  63 

holy  beings  or  by  that  of  utterly  lost  beings.  God 
cannot  do  wrong,  absolute  apostates  cannot  do  right, 
but  man  is  not  in  the  condition  of  either.  Whitby, 
whose  writings  Edwards  had  before  him  in  prepar- 
ing his  essay,  says  : 

"  The  liberty  belonging  to  this  question  is  only 
that  of  a  lapsed  man  in  a  state  of  trial,  probation 
and  temptation ;  whether  he  hath  a  freedom  to 
choose  life  or  death,  to  answer  or  reject  the  calls  and 
invitations  of  God  to  do,  by  the  assistance  of  the 
grace  afforded  in  the  gospel  to  him,  what  is  spirit- 
ually good  as  well  as  evil ;  or  whether  he  be  deter- 
mined to  one,  having  only  a  freedom  from  co-action, 
but  not  from  necessity.''  ^ 

Whitby  argues  man's  competency  to  acts  spirit- 
ually good,  and  hence  his  responsibility,  from  the 
exhortations  of  the  gospel  and  from  the  consciousness 
of  guilt,  universal  among  men ;  and  says  : 

^'  And  indeed,  who  feels  not  the  truth  of  these 
words  of  St.  Austin,  ^that  it  is  unjust  to  condemn 
him  as  disobedient,  who  hath  no  power  to  obey,' 
or  to  punish  men  for  doing  evil,  though  they  lie 
under  a  necessity  of  doing  it,  only  because  they  do 
it  willingly,  seeing  they  must  do  it  willingly  if  they 
do  it  at  all ;  because  they  must  first  mil  to  do  it, 
and  so  it  is  as  necessary  for  them  to  be  willing,  as 
it  is  to  do  it  ?"  2 

The  main  issue  between  the  Arminians  and  Cal- 
vinists,  so  far  as  philosophy  is  concerned,  is  at  thit* 
point ;    does  the  freedom  necessary  to  responsibility 

1.    Five  Points,  p.  263,  edition  of  1817. 
2.    Five  Points,  p.  301. 


64  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

require  freedom  from  necessity,  that  is,  what  Edwards 
calls  necessity  of  consequence,  what  is  known  as 
determinism  ?  or  the  question  might  be  :  whether 
there  is  any  connection  between  freedom  and  respon- 
sibility. 

Edwards  sought  rather  to  suppress  Arminianism 
than  to  establish  positively  the  basis  of  responsibility. 
He  has,  however,  given  his  views  upon  this  point, 
yet  not  with  such  general  acceptance  as  that  accorded 
to  his  criticism  of  Arminian  liberty.  He  explains 
man's  responsibility  for  things  which  he  is  unable  to 
do  by  means  of  the  distinction  between  natural  and 
moral  ability  and  inability.  Natural  ability  is  the 
power  to  do  a  thing  if  we  will.  When  there  is  no 
lack  of  strength  or  capacity,  where  there  are  no 
obstacles  to  hinder  in  the  performance  of  any  deed, 
we  have  natural  power  to  perform  it.  In  such  a 
case,  if  the  act  is  one  we  are  under  obligation  to 
perform,  we  are  justly  held  responsible  for  its  per- 
formance. In  such  circumstances  a  moral  inability 
to  perform  the  deed  does  not  excuse  ■  us  from  the 
responsibility.  We  may  have  such  a  disinclination 
to  humble  ourselves  before  one  whom  we  have  in- 
jured that  we  will  not  do  it,  and  so  long  as  we  will 
not  we  cannot.  But  this  inability  is  no  justification 
of  failing  to  perform  the  duty.  And  if  our  circum- 
stances were  such  that  we  should  yield  so  far  as 
mechanically  to  humble  ourselves,  yet  should  do  it 
hypocritically,  so  that  we  willed  not  the  humiliation 
but  the  advantage  to  be  gained  by  the  form  of 
humiliation,  we  should  then  neither  have  fulfilled 
our  obligation  nor  have  discharged  our  responsibility. 


EDWAKDEAXISM.  65 

And  our  blameworthiness  would  not  cease  if  we  were 
unable  to  bring  ourselves  to  a  willing  humiliation. 
Yet  this  moral  inability  is  as  absolute  an  inability, 
so  EdAvards  held,  as  a  natural  inability  would  be. 
The  causes  which  control  will-action  are  as  certain 
in  result  as  physical  forces.  The  difference  is  not 
in  the  certainty  of  the  connection  but  in  the  things 
connected.  How  then,  is  one  guilty  for  failing  to 
do  what  he  cannot  do?  He  is  guilty  because  the 
moral  quality  of  an  act  is  in  its  nature  not  in  its 
cause.  Malice,  dishonesty,  intemperance  are  vicious 
because  of  the  quality  that  resides  in  them,  not  from 
the  causes  that  give  rise  to  them. 

In  this  way  Edwards  wholly  separated  moral 
character,  guilt  or  innocence  from  liberty  or  freedom. 
He  made  choice  the  spontaneous  movement  of  the 
will  under  the  influence  of  motives,  and  when  the 
choice  is  made  the  question  of  guilt  or  innocence  is 
settled.  But  freedom  is  an  after  consideration. 
There  is  no  other  freedom  than  freedom  from  co- 
action  or  compulsion  in  carrying  out  the  choice,  after 
it  has  been  made  and  after  its  moral  character  is 
fixed.  He  says  no  other  freedom  is  possible  or  con- 
ceivable. 

2.  Original  Sin.  Edwards  probably  considered 
his  dissertation  on  "Original  Sin"  more  important  than 
that  on  the  "Will."  Pelagianism  stands  in  more 
direct  hostility  to  traditional  orthodoxy  than  Arminian- 
ism.  It  is  true  that  in  his  day,  the  latter  term  was 
often  used  as  if  it  included  original  sin,  but  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  was  perfectly  well  understood. 
It  is  also  true  that  he  believed  that  the  Arminian  doc- 


66  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

trine  of  free-will  would,  if  fully  accepted  and  made 
thoroughly  practical,  displace  all  such  doctrines  as 
total  depravity,  atonement  and  regeneration,  but  he 
did  not  fear  that  it  would  be  generally  accepted, 
much  less  become  thoroughly  practical.  In  fact  it 
was  in  his  day,  and  has  been  ever  since,  accompanied 
with  the  doctrine  of  gracious  ability.  But  in  the 
rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  he  saw  the 
rejection  of  the  entire  scheme  of  grace.  He  there- 
fore set  himself  to  the  task  not  only  of  criticising  its 
opponents,  but  of  establishing  the  doctrine  itself.  The 
contrast  between  the  title  of  this  work  and  of  that 
on  the  will  is  noticeable.     He  begins : 

''The  great  Christian  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin 
defended;  evidences  of  its  truth  produced.^' 

Then  follows  what  amounts  to  the  entire  title  of 
the  treatise  on  the  Will,  an  announcement  of  reply  to 
opponents. 

There  is  an  interest  of  a  personal  character  con- 
nected with  this  treatise,  since  it  is  the  last  that  he 
prepared  for  publication  and  was  passing  through  the 
press  at  the  time  of  his  death  in  1758.  It  exhibits 
the  same  boldness  of  speculation  that  characterized 
his  youthful  days,  and  shows  that  trying  experiences 
had  not  blunted  the  keenness  of  his  wit  or  his  met- 
aphysical acumen. 

Pelagianism  denies  the  depravity  of  human  nature. 
It  accounts  for  the  evils  that  enter  into  human  ex- 
periences, at  least  those  connected  with  blameworthi- 
ness, by  circumstances,  not  by  the  qualities  of  the 
soul  or  the  tendencies  of  nature.      It  teaches  that  in 


EDWAKDEANISM.  Q^ 

the  fall  Adam  injured  no  one  but  himself,  that  his 
posterity  enter  upon  life  with  all  the  advantages 
which  he  enjoyed,  and  that  while  many,  led  astray 
by  bad  example,  fall  into  sin,  some  live  lives  essen- 
tially sinless,  and  any  one  has  the  poAver  to  cease 
from  sin,  at  any  time,  and  enter  on  a  holy  life.  It 
teaches  that  the  expression  involuntary  sin  is  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms,  that  merit  and  demerit  are  ac- 
quired by  acts  of  the  will  solely,  that  original  right- 
eousness and  original  sin  are  alike  absurdities.  The 
conveyance  of  a  corrupt  and  sinful  nature  from  Adam 
to  his  posterity  is  denied. 

Such  are  the  views  which  Edwards  opposes. 
He  says  : 

^'  I  now  proceed  to  say  that  mankind  are  all  nat- 
urally in  such  a  state,  as  is  attended,  without  fail, 
with  this  consequence  or  issue :  that-  they  universally 
run  themselves  into  that  which  is,  in  effect,  their 
own  utter,  eternal  perdition,  as  being  finally  ac- 
cursed of  God,  and  the  subjects  of  his  remediless 
wrath  through  sin.  From  which  I  infer  that  the 
natural  state  of  the  mind  of  man  is  attended  with  a 
propensity  of  nature,  which  is  prevalent  and  effectual 
to  such  an  issue,  and  that  therefore  their  nature  is 
corrupt  and  depraved  with  a  moral  depravity,  that 
amounts  to  and  implies  their  utter  undoing.'' ^ 

He  says  of  the  arguments  which  he  adduces  in 
favor  of  the  position  here  taken  he  thinks  they  '^are 
truly  solid,  and  do  really  and  justly  conclude,  either 
that  men  are  born  guilty  and  so  are  chargeable  with 
sin  before  they  come  to  act  for  themselves,  or  else 
commit  sin  immediately,  without  the  least  time  inter- 

1.    II.,  p.  313. 


68  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

veiling,  after  they  are  capable  of  understanding  their 
obligation  to  God  and  reflecting  on  themselves/' ^ 

We  need  not  follow  out  Edwards'  argument  in 
favor  of  this  doctrine;  it  is  drawn  from  the  Scriptures 
and  from  human  history  and  is  not  peculiar  to  him 
or  to  New  England  Theology.  His  conception  of 
original  sin,  however,  as  a  fact  in  humanity  deserves 
our  attention.  How  do  men  become  possessed  of 
original  sin?  The  answers  are  various.  The  last 
quotation  from  Edwards  indicates  that  he  could  tol- 
erate a  doctrine  of  sin  that  would  deny  individual 
guilt  till  one  had  put  forth  a  moral  act  but  he  did 
not  adopt  it,  as  some  of  his  successors  did.  Some 
hold  that  on  the  ground  of  a  covenant  between  man 
and  God,  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  his  descendants  and 
that  they  are  immediately,  at  birth,  brought  into  a 
correspondent  state  of  corruption  and  guilt.  He  did 
not  accept  this  view.  Some  hold  that  Adam  being 
the  entire  race  at  the  fall,  in  his  fall  carried  down 
the  race  with  him.  It  is  fallen  humanity  that  is 
individualized  in  his  descendants,  so  that  they  are 
born  corrupt  and  guilty.  His  view  amounts  to  this 
in  the  result,  but  he  did  not  accept  this  explanation 
of  the  matter.  He  resorted  to  his  doctrine  of  theism 
to  furnish  himself  with  a  theory.  The  divine  will 
is  the  one  universal  force.  Its  preservation  of  cre- 
ated things  is  a  new  creation  each  moment.  A  cre- 
ated object  is  in  no  sense  the  cause  of  its  existence 
at  the  next  moment.  A  body  can  act  only  where  it 
is  and  when  it  is ;  a  body,  like  the  moon,  for  exam- 
ple,   is   not   for  two  successive  instants   in  the  same 

1.    II.,  p.  327. 


EDWAEDEANISM.  69 

time,  or  place,  therefore  it  could  not  in  the  first  in- 
stant produce  itself  in  the  second,  it  is  utterly  de- 
pendent on  the  power  of  the  creator.  Adam  was 
dependent,  in  like  manner,  each  moment  of  his  life 
on  God's  creative  power.  It  was  this  creative  power 
which  made  him  identically  the  same  man  at  any 
tvvo  points  of  time, — the  same  man  when  he  was  fifty 
and  when  he  was  a  hundred  years  old.  The  same 
power  could  make  him  and  any  other  person  iden- 
tically one  at  the  same  instant.  And  in  this  way 
God  has  caused  all  of  Adam's  posterity  to  sin  with 
him  and  fall  with  him.  In  accord  with  the  divine 
constitution  the  race  is  one  person  and  is  guilty  of 
the  first  transgression.  The  pollution  of  the  race, 
which  is  original  sin,  is  the  extended  pollution  of 
Adam  resulting  from  his  sin  at  the  fall.  God 
imputes  Adam's  sin  to  each  of  his  descendants  be- 
cause each  is  guilty.  The  pollution  of  each  one  is 
a  fact,  obvious  to  those  who  read  our  nature 
aright,  and  is  the  ground  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin.  The  imputation  is  mediate,  not  immediate;  has 
a  justifying  reason  in  our  corrupt  nature. 

This  explanation  of  original  sin  has  not  been 
adopted  into  New  England  Theology,  but  the  basis  of 
it,  a  constitution  established  by  the  Creator,  has  been 
adopted  and  fills  an  important  place  in  the  system. 
The  expression  was  probably  derived  from,  and  its  use 
justified  by,  Romans,  5:  19.  "For  as  through  one 
man's  disobedience  the  many  were  made  (constituted) 
sinners";  yet  Edwards  brought  it  into  use  and  his 
followers  adopted  it.  Their  dependence  on  it  as  an 
explanation  was  not  less  complete  than    his,  though 


70  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

the  specific  kind  of  constitution  which  he  advocated 
they  have  generally  rejected.  His  successors  have 
also  been  inclined  to  follow  him  in  the  doctrine  of 
mediate  imputation,  so  far  as  they  have  adopted  impu- 
tation at  all. 


CHAPTER    III. 

DOCTEIXES    PROMINENTLY    DISCUSSED    IN    NEW 
ENGLAND    THEOLOGY. 

It  will  be  necessary  after  having  noticed  Edwards' 
work,  to  group  to  some  extent,  the  thoughts  of 
different  authors,  and  to  consider  together  publica- 
tions of  different  dates.  But  before  giving  attention 
to  the  doctrines  that  are  to  come  under  review,  we 
may  notice  briefly  two  authors  who  were  friends  and 
disciples  of  Edwards,  through  whom  his  influence  was 
extended. 

Joseph  Bellamy  and  Samuel  Hopkins  were  both 
for  a  time  members  of  his  family,  studied  theology 
under  his  instruction,  eagerly  and  deferentially  perused 
whatever  he  published,  and  held  him  personally  in 
reverential  esteem.  It  is  no  slight  encomium  of  Ed- 
wards that  two  such  men,  not  easily  overawed  by 
their  associates,  should  have  looked  up  to  him  as  their 
leader.  Nor  is  it  to  the  discredit  of  Edwards  that 
he  should  have  desired  their  sanction  and  followed 
their  suggestions  in  preparing  treatises  for  publica- 
tion. Though  Edwards  was  more  than  fifteen  years 
the  senior  of  Bellamy  and  about  eighteen  years  the 
senior   of  Hopkins,  the    three    were    for   more   than 


72  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

fifteen  years  confidential  friends,  meeting  at  times  by- 
appointment  for  the  discussion  of  theological  opinions 
and  essays,  having  free  access  to  books  that  either 
might  possess,  and  in  frequent  communication  through 
correspondence.  The  friendship  continued  between 
the  latter  two  for  thirty  years  after  the  death  of 
Edwards. 

Joseph  Bellamy  was  born  in  New  Cheshire,  Conn., 
February  20,  1719.  He  was  graduated  at  Yale  Col- 
lege at  the  age  of  sixteen,  was  licensed  to  preach  two 
years  later,  and  in  1740,  at  the  age  of  twenty-one, 
became  pastor  of  the  church  at  Bethlem,  Conn.,  where 
he  remained  till  his  death  in  1790.  His  precocity 
of  intellect  did  not  indicate  premature  ripeness  but 
natural  preeminence.  Wherever  he  came  in  contact 
with  others  he  easily  took  a  conspicuous  position, 
commonly  the  first.  He  accepted  the  rank  accorded 
him  with  a  consciousness  of  strength,  so  that  it  was 
said  of  him  when  stricken  with  paralysis  in  1786, 
by  one  not  in  sympathy  with  his  theological  senti- 
ments, that  he  could  domineer  no  longer.  He  had 
the  gifts  of  an  orator ;  a  discriminating  intellect,  a 
flexible  and  commanding  voice,  an  abundant  vocabu- 
lary with  free  and  flowing  utterance,  a  majestic  bear- 
ing and  the  consciousness  of  having  a  message  for  his 
hearers.  His  church  was  small  and  during  the  great 
revival  of  1740  and  the  succeeding  years  he  left  his 
parish  for  considerable  periods  and  preached  as  an 
itinerant.  He  was  much  sought  for  and  was  con- 
sidered by  some  the  equal  of  Whitefield.  In  the 
course  of  two  years  he  preached  458  times  in  213 
places.      He  very  soon  gave  over  this  itinerant  work 


DOCTRINES  PROMINENTLY  DISCUSSED.         73 

and  resolutely  refused  to  resume  it.  He  seems  to 
have  been  doubtful  as  to  its  utility,  at  least  he  very 
decidedly  disapproved  of  the  excesses  which  followed 
the  Great  Awakening.  It  was  the  study  of  the 
effects  of  this  movement  which  led  to  the  prepara- 
tion for  the  press  of  the  work  by  which  he  is  now 
best  known :  "  True  Religion  Delineated ;  or,  Exper- 
imental Religion,  as  Distinguished  from  Formality  on 
the  one  hand,  and  Enthusiasm  on  the  other.''  Ed- 
wards read  the  manuscript  of  this  work,  favored  its 
publication  and  wrote  a  preface  for  it.  It  was  pub- 
lished in  1750,  and  has  been  considered  worthy  of  a 
place  by  the  side  of  ^^  Edwards  on  the  Affections," — 
a  work  of  kindred  aim.  Bellamy  was  known  in  his 
day  as  a  vigorous  opponent  of  Antinomianism  and  of 
the  half-way  Covenant.  Of  the  New  England  clergy 
he  was  the  most  earnest  and  persistent  opponent  of  the 
latter  scheme.  He  was  also  their  most  famous  theo- 
logical instructor  in  his  day,  having  been  said  to  be 
the  first  to  establish  "a  school  of  the  prophets''  in 
his  own  house.  He  received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Divinity  from  the  University  of  Aberdeen  in  1768. 
Circumstances  combined  with  natural  tendencies 
made  Samuel  Hopkins  the  most  intimate  literary 
friend  of  Edwards,  and  the  best  representative  of 
Edwardeanism.  When  a  senior  in  college  he  conceived 
a  high  admiration  for  Edwards  on  hearing  him  preach, 
and  ever  after  looked  upon  him  as  the  leading 
clergyman  of  his  acquaintance.  In  after  years  while 
he  could  say,  that  there  was  no  better  preacher  in 
the  country  than  Bellamy,  and  was  able,  as  he 
thought,  to  detect  some  mistakes  and  inconsistencies 


74  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

in  Edwards'  theology,  it  is  clear  that  he  always  con- 
sidered Edwards  as,  all  in  all,  without  a  peer. 

Hopkins  was  born  in  Waterbury,  Conn.,  Septem- 
ber 17,  1721.  He  was,  therefore,  eighteen  years 
younger  than  Edwards  and  two  and  a  half  years 
younger  than  Bellamy.  He  graduated  from  Yale 
College  in  1741.  He  went  before  the  close  of  the 
year  to  study  theology  with  Edwards  at  Northamp- 
ton. He  was  in  Edwards'  family,  in  all,  about  eight 
months,  but  not  continuously.  He  was  of  a  despond- 
ing disposition  and  at  once  excited  Mrs.  Edwards' 
interest  and  sympathy.  Her  religious  sentiments 
and  Christian  experience  undoubtedly  exercised  a 
marked  influence  upon  him.  He  was  licensed  to 
preach  in  April.  1742.  He  seems  to  have  preached 
with  good  acceptance  but  not  with  great  pleasure  to 
himself.  He  performed  stated  work,  however,  after 
December  of  that  year,  and  in  June,  1743,  began  his 
work  at  Housatonic,  afterward  Great  Barrington.  The 
following  month  he  spent  a  Sabbath  at  Edwards' 
house  but  refused  to  preach  though  urged  to  do  so. 
He  sat  under  Edwards'  ministrations  through  the 
day,  and  was  discouraged  and  ashamed  of  himself, 
after  listening  to  his  teacher.  In  December  of  the 
same  year  he  was  ordained  and  settled  as  pastor  over 
a  church  of  five  members  at  Housatonic.  The  posi- 
tion was  not  a  favorable  one  for  such  a  man.  The 
town  was  a  border  settlement,  having  a  heterogeneous 
population,  noted  for  immorality,  famous  for  disregard 
of  the  Sabbath,  for  intemperance  and  horse-racing. 
The  pastor  was  not  the  man  to  make  himself  readily 
influential   with   people    of  that   class;    still   he   had 


DOCTKINES  PROMINENTLY  DISCUSSED.         75 

warm  friends  in  the  parish  and  remained  there  in  the 
ministerial  office  twenty-five  years.  We  have  no 
special  means  of  knowing  hoAV  he  spent  the  youthful 
years  of  his  ministry,  but  we  know  it  was  in  a  rough 
border  town  and  amid  the  dangers  rising  from  the 
hostility  of  the  French  and  such  of  the  Indians  as 
were  in  league  with  them.  It  is  certain  that  he 
performed  the  duties  of  his  office  with  scrupulous 
conscientiousness,  that  he  studied  the  Scriptures  with 
great  carefulness  and  devotion,  and  that  he  gave 
much  time  to  the  work  for  which  nature  formed  him 
— the  study  of  theology.  Within  eight  years  from 
his  installation  Edwards  came  to  Stockbridge  and  for 
the  next  seven  years  the  two  were  within  an  hour's 
drive  of  each  other.  Though  Hopkins  had  a  mind 
no  less  independent  than  that  of  Edwards,  these 
years  must  have  been  dominated  by  theological  com- 
munings with  his  former  teacher.  Edwards  died  in 
1758  and  at  the  request  of  his  wife  his  papers  were 
put  into  the  hands  of  Hopkins  who  spent  six  years 
in  studying  the  manuscripts  and  selecting  and  pre- 
paring portions  of  them  for  publication.  In  1765, 
he  brought  out  two  essays,  that  on  "God's  Last  End 
in  Creation,"  and  the  "Dissertation  on  Virtue.''  This 
brings  us  near  to  the  close  of  his  ministry  in  Great  Bar- 
rington.  He  had  never  been  a  favorite  with  the  mass 
of  the  people ;  there  was  something  of  discontent  in  the 
church,  his  salary  was  in  arrears,  and  after  a  year  or  two 
of  uncertainty  as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued,  he  was 
dismissed  by  council  in  January,  1769.  After  an  in- 
terval of  about  fifteen  months  he  was  settled  as  pastor 
of  the  First  Congregational  Church  of  Newport,  E.  I. 


76  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

The  period  between  his  dismission  and  his  second 
installation  was  one  of  annoyance  and  turmoil.  He 
was  already  engaged  in  controversy,  his  opinions  had 
become  generally  known  and  were  distasteful  to  a 
great  part  of  the  clergy,  the  call  to  his  new  parish 
was  hesitant  and  never  unanimous,  there  were  pastors 
in  neighboring  parishes  who  opposed  the  call,  so  that 
his  acceptance  of  the  position  was  under  many  dis- 
couragements. Dr.  Stiles,  afterwards  president  of 
Yale  College,  the  pastor  of  the  Second  Church  in 
Newport,  was  a  decided  opponent  of  Hopkinsianism, 
as  Hopkins'  views  were  then  derisively  designated, 
and  was  known  to  disfavor  his  coming.  The  per- 
sonal relations  of  the  two  were,  however,  always 
friendly. 

The  life  of  Hopkins  after  going  to  Newport 
divides  itself  into  three  periods ; — six  years  of  pleas- 
ant and  cheering  labor,  three  years  of  exile,  while 
the  British  occupied  the  town,  and  twenty-three  years, 
including  those  of  his  infirmity  late  in  life,  of  cheer- 
less and  scantily  remunerated  toil.  The  Revolutionary 
War  had  an  unhappy  effect  upon  Newport;  its 
property  was  destroyed  to  a  large  extent,  the  better 
families  were  scattered,  many  of  them  never  returned, 
a  new  class  of  people  took  the  leadership  in  the 
place,  the  French  soldiers  stationed  there  had  dis- 
seminated their  infidel  views,  so  that  the  pastor,  (for 
a  time  the  pastor  in  fact  of  two  churches,  for  Dr. 
Stiles  did  not  return  after  the  war,)  had  in  many 
respects  an  uncongenial  home. 

Dr.  Hopkins  must  at  times  have  preached  with 
much  power.      One   or  two  of  his   sermons  made  a 


DOCTEINES  PEOMINENTLY  DISCUSSED.  77 

deep  impression  in  Boston.  He  preached  for  consid- 
erable periods  in  Salem  and  ISTewburyport,  and  won 
for  himself  lasting  friendships  and  a  permanent  influ- 
ence in  both  places.  He  was  not  without  invitations 
both  in  early  and  late  life,  to  settle  over  eligible 
churches.  Still  he  was  never  a  popular  preacher, 
his  power  was  in  the  matter  of  his  discourses,  not  in 
the  graces  of  oratory.  Dr.  W.  E.  Channing,  who 
from  his  childhood  had  known  him,  and  for  a  short 
time  sat  under  his  ministry,  says: 

"  His  delivery  in  the  pulpit  was  the  worst  I  ever 
met  with.  Such  tones  never  came  from  any  human 
voice  within  my  hearing.  He  was  the  very  ideal  of 
bad  delivery.  Then,  I  must  say,  the  matter  was  often 
as  uninviting  as  the  manner.  His  manner  had  a 
bluntness  partly  natural,  partly  the  result  of  long 
seclusion  in  the  country.'' 

In  addition  to  these  obstacles  to  success  he  was 
by  nature  wanting  in  the  cheer,  vivacity  and  hope- 
fulness which  are  indispensable  to  a  happy  pastorate. 
Though  he  was  an  agreeable  companion,  and  readily 
fell  into  humorous  conversation  with  those  who 
became  familiar  with  him,  his  measured  stateliness 
overawed  and  repelled  the  young,  and  was  ordinarily 
a  check  upon  social  intercourse.  His  temperament 
was  sombre,  his  estimate  of  the  world — the  Christian 
world — unfavorable  ;  he  often  doubted  his  own  "good 
estate,"  he  questioned  the  piety  of  many  professing 
Christians,  and  thought  much  of  the  preaching  in  the 
churches  misleading  and  erroneous.  He  came  to  put 
an  exaggerated  estimate  on  his  own  pet  doctrines, 
and  thought  the    reason  why   the    preaching   of  the 


78  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

gospel  was  so  ineffective  was,  that  the  clergy  did  not 
understand  the  doctrine  of  disinterested  benevolence 
and  the  character  of  unregenerate  doings. 

It  is  as  a  theologian  that  he  appears  at  best 
advantage.  It  was  natural  for  him  to  dwell  upon 
principles.  Dr.  Channing  describes  him  as  living 
in  a  world  of  thought.  Those  who  criticised  his 
writings,  as  Mr.  Mills  and  President  Langdon,  attrib- 
uted his  errors  to  too  great  faith  in  metaphysics. 
His  mind  was  comprehensive  and  was  given  to 
systematizing.  It  is  no  slight  praise  that  the  term 
Hopkinsian  or  Hopkintonian,  applied  to  his  scheme 
of  thought  in  ridicule  by  Rev.  William  Hart,  should 
remain  a  term  of  honor  and  serve  to  raise  the  object 
of  ridicule  into  a  most  conspicuous  place  among  New 
England  theologians. 

His  peculiar  views  will  be  noticed  hereafter,  but 
it  may  be  remarked  that  in  1793  he  published  his 
^'  System  of  Doctrine  Contained  in  Divine  Eevela- 
lation.''  This  is  still  one  of  the  best  statements  of 
the  New  England  System.  He  was  ten  years  in 
preparing  it.  It  was  well  received  and  furnished 
him  something  of  an  income  when  an  income  was 
much  needed. 

We  turn  now  to  consider  the  New  England  doc- 
trine. 

I. 

THE   DIVINE   PERMISSION   OF  SIN. 

It  was  inevitable  that  theologians  adopting 
Edwards'   ideas    of   benevolence    and    virtue    should 


THE  DIVIKE  PEKMISSION  OF  SIN.  79 

find  themselves  compelled  to  bring  the  existence  of 
sin  under  discussion.  Some  idea  of  the  popular  esti- 
mate of  their  theology  may  be  drawn  from  current 
representations  of  their  views.  They  were  reported 
to  hold  that  sin  is  a  good,  that  for  which  we  should 
be  thankful,  from  which  we  should  not  pray  to  be 
delivered,  while  a  man  had  better  be  found  killing 
his  father  and  mother  than  praying  and  reading  the 
Bible,  that  is,  than  using  the  means  of  grace  while  in  an 
unregenerate  state  Such  representations  are  misrepre- 
sentations except  as  taken  in  the  proper  connections, 
yet  their  views,  both  of  duty  and  sin,  were  peculiar. 
They  did  not  really  attempt  a  theodicy,  for  their  concep- 
tion of  the  divine  sovereignty  was  such  as  to  set 
aside  attempts  to  justify  the  ways  of  God.  They 
did  not  consider  themselves  called  upon  to  defend 
the  Divine  Ruler,  but  assumed  his  justice  and  benev- 
olence, and  argued  a  priori,  that  whatever  he  has  done, 
among  other  things  making  certain  the  sins  of  the 
world,  is  wisest  and  best.  Edwards  was  especially 
overawed  by  the  majesty  of  God,  and  was  little 
inclined  to  raise  questions  concerning  the  divine 
procedure.  His  wonderful  visions  of  the  divine 
glory,  his  ecstatic  contemplation  of  future  blessedness 
seem  to  have  disinclined  him  to  philosophize  upon 
the  matter  of  sin.  He  attributed  sin  to  a  negative 
cause,  though  he  admitted  that  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  God  may  be  said  to  be  its  author.  His  view 
of  virtue  also  required  him  to  make  some  explanation, 
or  attempt  an  explanation,  of  the  existence  of  Q\il, 
He  made  all  virtue  benevolence, — ^the  divine  holiness 
benevolence — and  could  not  have  avoided  asking  him- 


80  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

self  how  the  Ahnighty  Ruler  of  the  world  could 
make  his  love  of  men  consistent  with  their  sin  and 
misery.  Edwards'  two  most  intimate  friends,  how- 
ever, seem  to  have  felt  the  pressure  of  this  question 
more  than  he  did.  They  had  read  his  Dissertation 
on  Virtue,  though  it  was  not  published  till  after  the 
appearance  of  their  essays  on  "The  Wisdom  of  God 
in  the  Permission  of  Sin."  They  attempted  to  show 
that  the  existence  of  sin  is  consistent  with  the  highest 
good,  and  Hopkins  may  be  said  to  have  considered 
it  necessary  to  the  highest  good.  Their  views  were 
not  received  with  favor  but  served  to  render  the  New 
Divinity  increasingly  oifensive.  It  has  been  main- 
tained by  theologians  like  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  and 
by  some  of  the  later  New  England  theologians,  that 
if  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  it 
is  not  in  reality  an  evil.  The  essayists  certainly  did 
not  consider  sin  a  good  in  itself,  but  they  did  seem 
to  extenuate  its  heinousness  and  open  the  way  to  the 
inference  that  it  is  a  good  and  desirable  thing. 
Their  views  have  been  compared  with  those  of 
Leibnitz,  as  set  forth  in  his  Theodicy,  published  in 
1710,  and  those  of  Pope,  as  expressed  in  his  Essay  on 
Man,  published  in  1733.  But  it  is  not  probable 
that  these  works  were  familiarly  known  to  the  New 
England  divines  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  a  careful  study  shows  that  they  were 
conceived  in  a  very  diiferent  spirit  from  that  mani- 
fested by  our  own  countrymen.  Indeed,  Leibnitz's 
position  that  evil  is  incidental  to  a  finite  system, 
and  sin,  at  least,  not  to  be  prevented,  is  akin  to  the 
suggestions  of  the  later  opponents  of  Hopkinsianism. 


DOCTRINES    PROMINENTLY  DISCUSSED.  81 

At  the  disruption  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
1837  one  heresy  charged  upon  the  New  School  and 
traced  to  New  England,  was: 

"That  God  would  have  been  glad  to  prevent  the 
existence  of  sin  in  our  world,  but  was  not  able  with- 
out destroying  the  moral  agency  of  man;  or  that, 
for  aught  that  appears  in  the  Bible,  sin  is  incidental 
to  any  wise  moral  system."  ^ 

This  sentiment  was  very  strenuously  opposed  by 
the  Hopkinsians.  But  we  will  turn  to  the  essays 
themselves,  published,  one  in  1758,  the  other  in  1759. 

Dr.  Bellamy  adheres  persistently  to  the  idea  of 
permission  in  God's  relation  to  sin.  He  represents 
to  himself  God  as  standing  by  and  forbearing  to 
interpose  where  men  carry  out  such  of  their  sinful 
purposes  as  will  contribute  to  his  glory,  while  he 
represses  all  evil  devices  that  are  not  necessary  for 
his  glory  and  the  good  of  the  universe.  He  argues 
his  case  mainly  by  the  illustrations  found  in  Scrip- 
ture narratives.  He  cites  the  story  of  Joseph,  the 
deliverance  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  and  the  life  and 
death  of  Christ.      He  says  : 

"In  all  these  instances  of  God's  permitting  sin, 
he  had  a  view  to  the  manifestation  of  himself.  They 
gave  him  opportunities  to  act  out  his  heart;  and  so 
to  shoAV  what  he  was,  and  how  he  stood  affected ; 
and  he  intended,  by  his  conduct,  to  set  himself,  i.e., 
all  his  perfections,  in  a  full,  clear  and  strong  point 
of  light ;  that  it  might  be  known  that  he  was  the 
Lord,  and  that  the  whole  earth  might  be  filled  with 

1.    Schaflf's  Herzog.  I,  p.  170. 


82  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

his  glory.  And  he  intended  to  let  his  creatures  give 
a  true  specimen  of  themselves ;  that  it  might  be 
known  wnat  was  in  their  hearts."  ^ 

Bellamy  sees  in  sin  not  only  the  means  by  which 
the  glory  of  God  is  manifested,  but  the  means,  also, 
by  which  the  good  of  the  universe   is  promoted  : 

^^  Had  the  posterity  of  Abraham  lived  quietly  in 
the  land  of  Cfanaan,  and  multiplied  there  for  470 
years,  the  Canaanites  dying  off  meanwhile,  as  the 
Indians  do  in  America,  they  might  have  filled  the 
land  with  a  much  greater  number  of  inhabitants 
than  when  Joshua  brought  them  in,  and  no  Joseph 
sold ;  no  infants  drowned ;  no  making  bricks ;  no 
carcasses  left  in  the  wilderness,  and  they  strangers 
to  such  great  changes,  trials  and  sorrows ;  but  then 
God  woiud  not  have  had  an  opportunity  for  any  of 
those  wonderful  works  which  he  wrought,  whereby 
it  w^as  known  that  he  was  the  Lord,  and  the  whole 
earth  was  filled  with  his  glory,  and  a  foundation 
laid  for  much  good  to  that  people,  then,  and  in  all 
succeeding  generations  ;  yea,  to  this  day,  the  whole 
church  of  God  reap  the  benefit  of  those  wonderful 
works  which  were  recorded  for  our  instruction,  on 
whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come.'^  ^ 

He  does  not,  however,  base  his  faith  in  the  wis- 
dom of  permitting  sin  in  the  world  upon  the  good 
effects  which  he  can  trace,  but  upon  the  divine  char- 
acter : 

"Were  there  no  particular  instance  in  which  we 
could  see  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  permission  of  sin, 
yet,  from  the  perfections  of  the  divine   nature  alone, 

1.    Works  II,  p.  27.    References  to  Bellamy's  works  are  to  the  three 
volume  edition  of  1811. 

2.    II.    p.  81. 


PEEMISSION  OF  SIN.  83 

we  have  such  full  evidence  that  he  must  always  act 
in  the  "wisest  and  best  manner,  as  that  we  ought  not 
in  the  least  to  doubt  it/^  ^ 

He  infers,  therefore,  that  the  benefits  of  sin  are 
found  in  other  worlds  as  well  as  in  this.  The  sta- 
bility of  the  elect  angels  in  righteousness  he  supposed 
to  be  confirmed  by  the  terrible  calamities  that  have 
befallen  those  who  have  apostatized  from  God. 

Dr.  Bellamy  is  very  cautious,  in  his  treatment  of 
this  subject,  to  exclude  the  idea  that  God  can  by  any 
possibility  be  chargeable  with  sin.  On  the  other 
hand  he  is  represented  as  hating  it,  and  clearly  and 
earnestly  counselling  all  moral  beings  to  avoid  it. 

Hopkins  is  more  bold  and  positive  in  his  state- 
ments. His  supralapsarianism  comes  out  in  its 
strongest  form  in  treating  of  this  subject.  The 
existence  of  sin  was  a  topic  that  seemed  to  fas- 
cinate him  mth  a  dismal  but  irresistible  charm.  He 
gave  great  prominence  to  the  divine  agency  in  its 
occurrence.  He  was  as  far  as  possible  from  holding 
that  God  commits  sin,  but,  that  he  permits  it,  was  too 
weak  an  expression  for  his  idea.  His  own  express- 
ions will  best  communicate  his  thought.  Of  the 
present  system  of  tilings,  he  says : 

^^  As  it  must  be  the  wisest  and  best  possible  plan, 
containing  all  the  possible  good  that  infinite  ^dsdom 
and  goodness  could  devise  and  desire,  and  omnipo- 
tence execute,  it  can  not  be  altered  in  the  most  mi- 
nute particular,  or  circumstance,  to  eternity.^'  ^  "  There 
is,  therefore,  the  greatest  possible  certaint}^,  from  the 
divine  perfections  that  sin  does  exist  just  in  the  man- 

1.    Works,  II,    p.  35.  2.    III.,  p.  735. 

References  to  Hopkins'  works  are  to  the  three  volume  edition  of  1853. 


84  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

ner  and  in  that  degree,  and  in  every  instance  of  it, 
with  all  the  attendants  and  consequents  of  it  which 
do  or  will  take  place,  agreeably  to  the  dictates  of 
Infinite  Wisdom  and  Goodness,  as  being  necessary  to 
accomplish  the  most  wise  and  best  end,  the  great- 
est possible  good  of  the  universe ;  and  the  sin  and 
misery  which  are  not  necessary  to  promote  this  end, 
shall  never  exist,  as  it  is  contrary  to  Infinite  Wisdom 
and  Goodness  that  they  should/ '^^ 

The  importance  of  sin  in  promoting  the  highest 
good  he  sets  forth  in  this  way  : 

..."  And  though  the  effects  of  holiness  and  sin  are 
in  their  nature,  and  considered  in  themselves,  so  in- 
finitely different  and  contrary  to  each  other,  and  the 
latter  most  odious  and  abominable,  yet  the  existence 
of  them  both  may  be  equally  important  and  desirable, 
and  necessary  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  greatest 
possible  good.  It  hence  appears  that  God's  dispo- 
sition and  will  respecting  it,  which  is  the  origin  and 
cause  of  it,  and  his  disposition  and  will  revealed  in 
his  law  requiring  benevolence,  and  all  that  is  implied 
in  it,  and  forbidding  the  contrary,  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent, and  one  and  the  same.  And  were  it  possible 
for  him  to  will  and  to  choose  that  sin  should  not 
exist,  this  would  have  been  infinitely  contrary  to  the 
divine  laws.'^^ 

.  .  .  "It  is  most  evident  to  those  who  will  impar- 
tially consider  the  matter,  that  God's  holiness  is  as 
much  exercised,  and  as  really  appears  in  his  permit- 
ting sin,  as  in  any  of  his  conduct  whatsoever."  ^ 
..."  The  more  holy  men  are,  and  so,  the  more  they 
hate  sin,  the  more  well  pleased  they  are  with  God's 
permitting  sin,  and  the  more  they  fall  in  with  his 
designs  herein."  ^ 

1.    III.,  p.  734.  2.    I.,  p,  140. 

3.     II.,  p.  529.  4.    II.,  p.  525. 


PERMISSION  OF  SIN.  35 

Hopkins  thus  undertakes,  not  to  justify,  but  to 
glorify  God  as  the  author  of  a  system  that  involves 
the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world.  He  does 
not  discuss  the  further  question  whether  it  is  right 
to  create  men  destined  through  their  own  voluntary 
actions  to  sin  and  suffer,  but  he  implies  that  God  as 
a  sovereign  has  that  right. 

*^  From  all  this  it  appears  that  God,  being  under 
no  obligation  to  preserve  any  of  His  rational  crea- 
tures from  sinning,  may,  consistently  with  His  right- 
eousness, wisdom  and  holiness,  order  things  so  that 
any  number  of  them  shall  become  sinful,  when  this 
is  most  for  His  glory  and  the  general  good.  Accord- 
ingly it  was  agreeable  to  His  will  and  purpose  that 
vast  numbers  of  the  angels  should  fall  into  sin ;  and 
had  this  will  and  purpose  reached  all  of  them,  they 
would  have  had  no  reason  to  complain  of  any  in- 
justice  or  wrong  done  them.^^  ^ 

He  proceeds  to  make  the  same  remarks  concern- 
ing men,  and  adds,  that  God  had  a  right  to  connect 
the  sin  of  man  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  he  has,  or 
to  have  resorted  to  some  other  method  if  he  had 
seen  fit  to  secure  the  same  result. 

Eev.  Stephen  West,  D.D.,  the  immediate  successor 
of  President  Edwards  in  Stockbridge,  and  one  of  the 
most  noted  adherents  of  the  New  England  Theology, 
is  quite  as  bold  as  Hopkins  in  maintaining  the  neces- 
sity of  sin  in  the  best  moral  system.      He  says : 

"It  must  be  a  very  peculiar  stretch  of  imagina- 
tion and  thought,  that  can  suppose  the  present  system 
of  events  and  administration  is  not,  in  all   its   parts, 

1.   I.  p.  220 


86  ^"EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

the  fruit  of  choice  and  wise  design,  and  that  in  pre- 
ference to  all  other  systems  possible  or  conceivable, 
and  this  it  certainly  could  not  be,  unless  some  more 
Avise  and  valuable  ends  were  to  be  accomplished, 
than  could  have  been  brought  to  pass  in  a  system 
wherein  there  was  "no  moral  evil.'^^ 

Supralapsarianism  seems  sufficiently  obvious  in 
the  following: 

"If  it  is  a  desirable  thing  that  hatred  of  the 
divine  mind  to  sin  should  be  manifested  and  appear, 
it  was  a  desirable  thing  that  there  should  be  suitable 
objects  towards  whom  this  disposition  of  the  divine 
mind  might  be  manifested  and  appear.  If  it  is  a 
desirable  thing  that  the  hatred  of  the  divine  mind  to 
sin  should  be  exercised,  it  is  of  course  a  desirable 
thing  that  there  should  be  some  proper  objects  toward 
whom  to  exercise  it.  And  on  Avhom  is  it  possible 
that  God  should  exercise  and  manifest  his  hatred  of 
sin,  but  the  sinner?  It  is,  therefore,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  desirable  that  such  beings  as  sinners  should 
exist  in  the  intelligent  system ;  consequently  a  desirable 
thing  that  moral  evil  should  come  into  existence.^' ^ 

The  same  argument  avails  him  to  show  that  there 
must  be  sinners  in  order  that  God  may  have  an  op- 
portunity to  manifest  his  mercy.  He  was  in  the  new 
theology  a  disciple  of  Hopkins  and  would  have  a- 
greed  with  him  in  his  view  of  the  divine  agency  in 
the  sinful  deeds  of  men.  Hopkins  said  that  God 
might  Avork  in  one  way  in  the  production  of  their 
holy  deeds  and  in  another  in  the  production  of  their 
sinful  deeds,  but  each  class  is  connected  with  the 
divine  fiat. 

1.    Moral  Agency,  p.  176.  2.    Ibid.,  p.  204. 


PERMISSION  OF  SIN.  87 

"  If  by  God's  permitting  sin  be  meant  that  sin 
will  exist,  if  God  do  not  interfere  and  hinder  the 
existence  of  it  by  a  positive  exertion,  and  he  only 
forbears  such  exertion,  and  suffers  it  to  take  place, 
this  involves  a  real  absurdity  and  impossibility,  as  it 
supposes  sin  to  exist  without  any  proper  cause,  and 
wholly  independent  of  the  first  cause/^ 

The  theological  statesman.  Governor  John  Tread- 
well,  of  Connecticut,  (born  1745,  died  1823)  seems 
to  have  embraced  supralapsarian  views  of  sin.  His 
theological  sentiments  were  established  by  reading 
Edwards  on  the  Will,  but  in  some  of  his  statements 
he  went  beyond  his  teacher's  expressions  if  not  be- 
yond his  idea  as  to  the  necessity  of  sin.  He  says 
the  general  good  requires  that  some  creatures  should 
be  vessels  of  mercy  and  'some  vessels  of  wrath.  ^ 
He  says  that  sin  and  suffering  do  not  militate  against 
the  goodness  of  God  but  rather  increase  and  support 
the  evidence  of  it.  Suffering  as  penal  is  evidence 
of  the  prevalence  of  justice  in  the  divine  government, 
as  monitory  it  is  a  deterrent  from  evil.  And  if 
suffering  is  evidence  of  the  divine  goodness  then  sin 
is  like  evidence,  for  it  furnishes  the  ground  of  pun- 
ishment or  chastisement.  ^    He  says  : 

"  In  order  then  to  prove  that  the  existence  of 
sin  makes  anything  against  the  goodness  of  God,  it 
must  be  demonstrated  that  God  himself  cannot  over- 
rule it  for  the  display  of  his  glory  or  the  happiness 
of  his  creatures."  '^ 

I.  I,  p.  145. 
2.    Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine,  III,  p.  46. 
3.    Ibid.,  II,    pp.  405,  408. 
4.    Ibid.,  II.  p,  405. 


88  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Most  New  England  divines  have  been  more 
guarded  in  their  expressions  on  this  subject.  Em- 
mons, who  surpasses  all  others  in  his  statements 
concerning  the  divine  co-operation  with  man,  says  : 

"So  sin,  in  itself,  does  not  make  good,  but  it  is 
that  without  which  some  good  cannot  take  place. 
*  *  *  And  if  it  be  possible  in  the  nature  of  tilings 
for  sin  to  be  the  occasion  of  good,  then  it  is  certain, 
from  the  rectitude  of  the  divine  character,  that  it 
will  be  so.  God  would  neither  introduce  sin  into 
the  world,  nor  suffer  it  to  exist,  but  for  the  wisest 
and  best  ends.  *  *  *  God  will  so  order  and  govern 
the  conduct  of  men,  that  no  more  sin  shall  exist 
than  shall  be  the  occasion  of  good.^'  ^ 

A  current  expression  among  New  England  divines 
who  did  not  enter  into  public  discussions,  in  adjust- 
ing their  views  upon  this  topic,  came  to  be  for  a 
time,  "sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good."  Dr.  Woods,  professor  of  theology  at  Andover 
from  1808  to  1846,  maintained  this  view.  He  was 
accustomed  to  say  that  God  preferred  sin  to  holiness 
in  every  instance  of  its  actual  occurrence.  It  was 
not  asserted  that  he  preferred  it  in  itself  considered, 
on  the  contrary  his  hatred  of  sin  was  asserted  in  the 
strongest  terms,  but  all  things  considered,  in  every 
instance  of  its  occurrence,  he  did  prefer  it  to  holi- 
ness. This  may  be  considered  the  Hopkinsian 
doctrine.  But  there  entered  into  New  England 
theology  from  New  Haven  a  new  anti-Hopkinsian 
element  so  far  as  this  point  is  concerned.  N.  W. 
Taylor,    D.  D.,    professor  of   divinity    in    the  Yale 

1.    Vol.  VI,  p.  170. 
References  to  Emmons  are  to  the  six  volume  edition  of  1843. 


PERMISSION  OF  SIN.  89 

Divinity  School  from  1822  to  1858,  opposed  very 
vehemently  these  two  positions,  that  sin  is  the  neces- 
sary means  of  the  greatest  good,  and  that  God  can 
prevent  all  sin  in  a  moral  system.  He  denied  that 
God  prefers  sin  to  holiness  under  any  circumstances ; 
affirmed  that  he  ahvays  prefers  obedience  to  disobe- 
dience, else  his  commands  and  promises  are  not 
sincere  ;  denied  that  sin  is  totally  evil,  if  it  is  the 
necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good. 

But  his  affirmations  in  theodicy  are  not  so  posi- 
tive as  his  denunciations.  He  quotes  approvingly 
Dr.  D^dght's  reply  to  the  question,  ^^  Why  does  God 
permit  sin?^'  "Even  so,  Father,  for  so  it  seemed 
good  in  thy  sight.''  In  any  further  discussion  of 
the  topic  he  fell  back  upon  the  position  that,  it  may 
be  true  that  God  cannot  prevent  all  sin  in  a  moral 
system.  He  maintained  very  strenuously  that  those 
who  believe  that  sin  can  be  prevented  in  a  moral 
system  make  the  positive  assertion,  and  that  on  them 
rests  the  burden  of  proof,  and  that  until  they  have 
brought  forward  their  proof,  they  have  no  right  to 
assert  that  it  is  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest 
good.  He  says  sin  may  be  incidental  to  any  moral 
system.  It  must  be  possible,  it  may  be  actual. 
This,  he  thinks,  differs  toto  coelo  from  the  Hopkin- 
sian  view.  Dr.  Taylor's  view  will  be  noticed  more 
fully  hereafter.  Since  his  day  many  Hopkinsians 
have  rested  with  the  assertion,  God  cannot  prevent 
all  sin  in  the  best  moral  system. 

Arminian  divines  like  Eichard  Watson  have 
brought  the  doctrine  of  redemption  into  their 
theodicy.      They  have  argued  that  there  is  no  injus- 


90  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

tice  in  the  divine  permission  of  sin  because  the 
scheme  of  salvation  is  concurrent  with  it.  The 
mission  of  Christ,  so  they  teach,  was  no  afterthought, 
but  a  provision  for  man's  rescue,  made  before  he 
entered  on  the  career  that  was  to  lead  to  his  fall. 

Recent  JSTew  England  theologians  have  adopted 
similar  views,  looking  to  the  future  life  to  afford 
opportimities  of  deliverance  from  sin  to  all  those  to 
whom  the  Gospel  of  Christ  had  not  been  made 
know^n  in  this  life.  Lewis  F.  Stearns,  professor  of 
theology  in  Bangor  Theological  Seminary  from  1881 
to  1892,  says: 

"Sin  is  man's  work,  not  God's,  but  God  knew 
what  he  was  about  when  he  determined  to  permit  a 
certain  amount  of  it  in  his  w^orld.  He  meant  to 
work  out  a  higher  manifestation  of  his  love  and  a 
higher  type  of  human  character  than  would  be  pos- 
sible without  it,  in  a  word  to  secure  a  greater  good. 
Our  great  trouble  in  dealing  with  this  subject  is  that 
we  look  at  God's  plan  only  in  relation  to  sin,  where- 
as we  should  look  at  it  equally  in  its  relation  to 
redemption.  *  *  *  I  believe  it  is  a  blessing  to  be 
brought  into  such  a  world  and  to  have  a  chance  to 
win  its  glorious  prize,  and  this  not  only  in  spite  of 
the  risks,  but  even  because  of  the  risks."  ^ 

The  drift  of  thought  at  the  present  time  may  be 
indicated  by  these  statements,  but  making  the  scheme 
of  redemption  a  product  of  the  divine  justice  cannot 
be  said  to  be  a  part  of  New  England  Theology 
proper.  The  final  outcome  of  this  theology  in  its 
discussion  of  "the  moral  uses  of  dark  things"  prob- 
ably does  not  diifer  from  the  former  prevailing  opin- 

1 .    Present  Day  Theology,  pp.  244,  245. 


DOCTKINE  OF  SIN.  91 

ion  of  the  church,  as  expressed  from  time  to  time  in 
its  history,  for  instance,  in  Archbishop  Leighton's 
sermon  on  "  Grapes  from  Thorns,^^  he  says  :  "  God 
is  the  absolute  monarch  of  men's  hearts,  and  works 
his  own  glory  out  of  their  attempts,  while  they 
strive  most  to  dishonor  him/' 

II. 

THE   NEW   ENGLAND   DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 

The  epithet  Edwardean  is  less  applicable  to  the 
New  England  doctrine  of  sin  than  to  any  other 
prominent  doctrine  of  its  theology.  Edwards  op- 
posed Pelagianism  by  af&rming  the  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal sin.  His  successors  have  opposed  it  by  other 
means  and  have  not  accepted  his  argument.  Their 
assertion  of  the  fact  of  human  sinfulness  and  of  an 
innate  tendency  to  sin  while  they  denied  inherited  sin, 
has  led  to  much  speculation  and  acute  discrimina- 
tions, but  not  to  formulated  statements  that  are  re- 
ceived without  questioning.  Each  theologian  has 
desired  to  make  his  own  explanations  even  where  he 
avowed  a  substantial  agreement  with  others.  The 
Hopkinsian  doctrine  here  is  not  simply  that  of  Hop- 
kins or  of  any  individual,  but  the  conglomerate  teach- 
ing of  many  persons.  There  is,  however,  a  trend  of 
teaching  common  to  the  entire  class  of  the  theolo- 
gians of  which  we  are  speaking.  It  will  be  neces- 
sary to  cite  several  names  in  treating  of  this  subject. 

IN  WHAT  SIN   CONSISTS. 

1.  Sin  as  Transgression.  On  this  point  there  is 
a  good  degree  of  unanimity  among   our  theologians, 


92  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

and  Hopkins'  clear  and  comprehensive  statements  on 
the  general  subject  find  ready  acceptance.      He  says : 

*'  By  the  view  we  have  had  of  the  divine  law  and 
moral  government,  we  may  learn  what  is  the  rule  of 
our  duty  now,  and,  consequently,  what  is  sin  in  us, 
viz.  every  deviation  of  heart  from  the  rule  of  duty, 
by  omission  of  what  it  requires,  or  doing  what  it  for- 

The  law  of  which  he  here  speaks  is  that  imposed 
on  man  in  his  original  state.  He  looks  upon  all 
other  law  as  contained  in  this,  and  considers  this  the 
requirement  of  love  to  God  and  man.      He  says : 

"  We  must,  therefore,  look  into  this  perfect  law  and 
rule  of  duty,  and  no  where  else,  in  order  to  know 
what  is  our  duty,  and  what  is  sin ;  and  by  this  alone 
can  we  obtain  the  knowledge  of,  and  ascertain  our 
OAvn  moral  character.^'  ^ 

By  omission  the  author  does  not  mean  simply  the 
failure  to  perform  a  duty,  but  a  voluntary  neglect. 
With  him  omission  is  as  truly  active  as  transgres- 
sion, is,  in  fact,  a  form  of  transgression. 

"  All  sin  consists  in  the  nature  and  quality  of  the 
exercises  which  take  place  in  a  moral  agent.'^ 

Some  New  England  theologians  have  defined  sin 
as  "voluntary  transgression  of  known  law,''  but 
Hopkins  did  not  make  guilt  dependent  on  knowl- 
edge. He  says,  commenting  on  the  Scripture  refer- 
ence to  sinning  ignorantly: 

"Hence   it   appears    that   persons   may  be    moral 

1.    I,  p.  205.  2.    I,  p.  206.  3.    I.  p.  231. 


DOCTRINE  OF  SIN.  93 

agents,  and  sin  without  knowing  what  the  law  of 
God  is,  or  of  what  nature  their  exercises  are,  and 
while  they  have  no  consciousness  that  their  exercises 
are  wrong."  ^ 

2.  Sin  as  Selfishness,  But  the  New  England 
view  of  sin  is  not  presented  with  its  distinctive 
peculiarity  through  its  relation  to  law.  Its  active 
nature  and  its  motive  force  are  more  fully  brought 
out  by  the  assertion  that  all  sin  is  selfishness.  As  these 
theologians  tried  to  reduce  virtue  to  a  simple  act,  so 
they  aimed  to  find  one  simple  exercise  of  soul  which 
should  include  all  sin.  Over  against  benevolence  in 
which  they  found  all  virtue  they  set  selfishness  in 
which  all  sin  is  to  be  found.  Selfishness  is  that 
self-love  that  gives  self  the  first  place.  It  is  not  the 
self-love  that  gives  us  an  interest  in  the  affairs  of 
the  world,  nor  that  which  results  from  the  love  of 
being  in  general,  but  the  self-love  which  would 
subordinate  all  else  to  its  own  gratification.  Of 
self-love  thus  understood,  Hopkins  says ; 

"  It  is  in  its  whole  nature,  and  in  every  degree  of 
it,  enmity  against  God.  *  *  *  This  is,  therefore, 
the  fruitful  source   of  every  exercise  and  act  of  im- 

Eiety  and    rebellion  against  God,    and  contempt   of 
im  that  ever  was  or  can  be."  ^ 

This  view  of  sin,  that  it  is  selfishness  and  that  it 
is  the  quality  of  an  act  not  of  a  state,  is  the  deci- 
dedly prevalent  view  in  New  England;  exceptions, 
or  apparent  exceptions,  will  be  noticed  hereafter. 
When  the  term  sinful  is  applied  to  a  state  it  is  used 

1.    I.  p.  232.  2.    III.  p.  29. 


94  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

figuratively,  or  it  is  intended  to  affirm  that  the  state 
is  such  that  under  certain  circumstances  sinful  deeds 
will  flow  from  it.    Dr.  Bellamy  says: 

"Ever  since  our  first  parents  aspired  to  be  gods, 
it  has  been  the  nature  of  all  mankind  to  love  them- 
selves supremely,  and  to  be  blind  to  the  infinite 
beauty  of  the  divine  nature;  and  it  remains  so  with 
all,  until  renewed  by  divine  grace;  so  that  self-love 
is  the  highest  principle  from  which  unregenerate  men 
do  ever  act,  or  can  act.'^  ^ 

Dr.  Emmons,  in  summing  up  his  work  as  a 
preacher,  says : 

"I  have  endeavored  to  show:  that  holiness  and 
sin  consist  in  free  voluntary  affections  and  exercises ; 
that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  guilty  of  no  sin  but 
their  own  free,  voluntary,  selfish  affections;  that 
sinners  do  not  perform  one  holy  and  acceptable  act 
until  they  exercise  pure,  disinterested  love. 

Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor  gave  his  maturest  thought  to 
the  doctrine  of  sin,  and,  though  he  gave  a  wider 
range  to  innocent  self-love  than  some  of  the  New 
England  divines,  was  quite  as  positive  as  any  in  as- 
serting that  selfishness  is  the  sum  of  sin.  Professor 
Fisher  thinks  he  made  a  valuable  contribution  to 
theology  in  treating  of  this  topic.  He  made  sin  a 
transgression  of  known  law,  but  taught  that  men  sin 
carelessly,  without  comprehending  the  import  of  their 
conduct,  and  that  it  is  only  occasionally  that  they  are 
impressed  with  the  true  nature  of  sin.  When  pro- 
perly apprehended  it  is  the  elective  preference  of  self 

1.    I.  p.  195, 


DOCTKINE  OF  SIN.  95 

to  God.  This  fact  is  not  indeed  recognized  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  life,  but  careful  reflection  reveals 
that  there  is  with  all  men  a  profound,  permanent 
preference  of  self  to  God,  and  this  preference  is  the 
sum  of  sin.  Professor  Fisher  thinks  this  is  a  pro- 
found conception  of  the  Augustinian  stamp.  This 
selfish  principle  Taylor  considered  the  essential  evil 
which  calls  forth  the  divine  disapprobation,  while  its 
mere  continuance — the  same  in  kind  and  degree — 
does  not  increase  its  heinousness.  ^ 

One  of  the  most  strenuous  supporters  of  the  active 
nature  of  sin  is  Professor  Park.  In  replying  to  the 
criticisms  of  Dr.  Hodge,  he  says : 

"The  speculations  of  our  Edwardean  divines  on 
moral  agency  are  a  proof  of  their  having  adopted 
the  maxim  of  common  sense,  that  all  sin  consists  in 
sinning.  And  here  the  great  fact  is,  that  they  looked 
upon  moral  agency  as  essential  to  good  or  ill  desert, 
and  upon  a  moral  agent  as  the  only  responsible  be- 
ing, and  they  frequently  describe  men  as  becoming 
sinners  ^as  soon  as  they  become  moral  agents,'  and 
not  before.  ^  >i<  >i<  y  olumes  might  be  filled  with 
the  repetitions  which  these  men  make  of  the  asser- 
tion, tnat  all  sin  is  perverted  free-agency,  and  that 
free-agency  ^consists  in  choosing,  and  in  nothing 
else.' '^3 

These  remarks  are  made  in  defence  of  a  position 
which  he  had  previously  taken. 

3.  Sin  as  an  Inherent  Tendeney,  Among  the  suc- 
cessors of  Edwards  there  has  been  a  class  of  divines 
who  have  dissented  from  some  of  the  later  dogmas  of 

1.    Moral  Government,  I.  p.  174. 
2.    Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1852,  p.  194. 


96  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

New  England  theology,  and  who  have  claimed  to  be 
the  true  representatives  of  Edwardeanism.  It  was 
under  their  leading  that  the  Theological  Institute  of 
Connecticut  was  planned  in  1833.  The  movement 
was  designed  to  counteract  the  influence  of  New 
Haven  Theology — which  will  be  noticed  hereafter — 
but  it  sustained  and  advocated  positive,  as  well  as 
opposed  what  were  deemed  heretical,  views.  These 
theologians  at  times  speak  of  sin  as  pertaining  to 
states  of  the  soul  as  well  as  to  acts,  yet  they  seem 
to  imply  an  activity  in  connection  with  all  sin.  All 
New  England  theologians  apply  the  term  sinful  to  the 
moral  bias  of  nature  because  it  leads  to  sin,  but  many 
deny  that  it  can  be  characterized  as  involving  guilt 
or  as  actually  sinful.  Those  who  are  sometimes  called 
the  Old  School  New  England  theologians  seem  to 
attribute  guilt  to  acts  or  states  prior  to  the  acts  con- 
sidered sinful  by  the  New  School.  Rev.  E.  A. 
Lawrence,  D.  D.,  in  the  Biblioiheca    Sacra  for  1863, 


"The  Old  (school)  affirms  sin  to  be  a  wrong 
status  or  bias  of  the  will,  as  well  as  a  violation  of 
known  law.^' 

Yet  he  seems  to  conceive  of  the  bias  as  in  some 
degree  active,  it  is  a  bias  of  the  will  and  so  volun- 
tary.     He  explains  more  fully  thus: 

"The  depravity  of  nature,  the  first  sinfulness  of 
the  child,  consists  in  this  voluntary  deflection  of  the 
will  from  God.  It  is  not  choice,  for  this  implies 
antecedent  knowledge  of  law,  and  a  comparison  of 
right  and  wrong,  but  it  leads  to  choice,  and  is  the 
generic    moral    force    concreted    and    determined    in 


DOCTRINE  OF  SIN.  97 

choice  to  a  specific  object.  Hence  we  call  a  dispo- 
sition to  sin  a  sinful  disposition.  It  is  the  primal 
force,  the  central  dynamic  oppu^nancy  to  God  which 
works  itself  out  in  all  the  actualities  of  evil."  ^ 

At  the  time  of  writing  the  article  for  the  Biblio- 
tJieca  Sacrcty  Dr.  Lawrence  was  professor  of  theology 
in  the  Theological  Institute  of  Connecticut.  Eev. 
Bennet  Tyler,  D.  D.,  the  first  President,  and  first 
Professor  of  Christian  Theology  in  the  same  institu- 
tion, w^ho,  as  his  biographer  states,  "  always  professed 
to  belong  to  the  school  of  Edwards,  Bellamy,  Griffin, 
D^^dght  and  Woods,"  seems  to  imply  that  sin  is 
active  in  its  nature.  Eeplying  to  the  objection  to 
the  doctrine  of  native  depravity,  that  it  "is  incon- 
sistent with  the  accountability  of  man,"  he  says: 

"This  objection  will  be  seen  to  have  no  weight, 
when  we  consider  that  mankind  are  free  moral 
agents,  notwithstanding  their  natures  are  depraved. 
The  free  agency  of  man  was  not  impaired  oy  the 
fall.  Mankind  are  laid  under  no  natural  necessity 
to  sin.  They  act  under  no  compulsion.  They  are 
free  to  choose  or  refuse.  Good  and  evil  are  set 
before  them;  and  although  they  are  naturally  in- 
clined to  choose  the  evil,  they  do  it  as  freely  as 
Adam  did  the  first  time  he  sinned."  ^ 


He,  however,  objects  to  Dr.  Taylor^s  view  that 
man^s  nature  is  not  itself  sinful  and  is  not  the 
cause,  but  only  the  occasion  of  sin,  and  says  if 
man   is   born   ^vith  a    nature    the   same   in   kind  as 

1.    p.  319. 
2.    Memoirs  and  Lectures,  p.  201. 


98  I^'EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Adam's   then   there    is    no    connection    between   the 
sin  of  Adam  and  that  of  his  posterity.  ^ 

AXIOMS    CONCEKNING   SIN. 

We  may  notice  a  few  principles  in  connection  with 
this  topic  taken  for  granted  by  the  adherents  of  the 
New  England  Theology. 

Sin  consists  in  sinning.  It  is  considered  absurd 
to  hold  that  sin  can  occur  when  nothing  is  done. 
Sin  attaches  to  an  agent,  is  the  quality  of  a  deed 
because  of  which  quality  the  deed  is  condemned. 
The  axiom  denies  that  there  is  sin  in  a  mere  state 
of  existence.  If  there  is  guilt  in  continuing  in  a 
certain  state,  it  is  because  there  is  a  voluntary  persist- 
ence in  remaining  in  that  state,  not  because  of  the 
state  itself.  The  axiom  denies  the  doctrine  of  inher- 
ited sin.  A  heritage  descends  upon  one  without  his 
agency,  in  coming  into  possession  of  which  one  is 
passive.  There  can  be  no  guilt,  it  is  claimed,  in 
being  passively  the  recipient  of  that  which  is  thrust 
upon  one  without  his  knowledge  or  consent.  If  there 
is  guilt  and  sin  in  connection  with  an  inheritance,  it 
is  in  appropriating  it, — availing  one's  self  of  it,  not 
in   being  made  its   possessor. 

Another  axiom  may  be  stated  thus  :  sin  is  to  be 
charged  to  an  individual  will.  Only  a  will  can 
sin,  and  every  will  must  be  right  or  wrong  in  its 
conduct.  It  is  held  that  in  moral  agency  and  re- 
sponsibility each  will  is  independent,  there  is  an 
absolute  severance  of  the  will  of  the  child  from  that 
of   the    parent,    and    there    is  no    possibility    of   so 

1.    Letters  on  New  Haven  Theology,  pp .  13,  14. 


DOCTKINE  OF  SIN.  99 

merging  the  individual  will  in  a  corporate  will  as  to 
destroy  personal  and  individual  responsibility.  The 
axiom  denies  imputed  sin.  It  is  inconsistent  with 
the  very  nature  of  sin  to  attribute  to  one  the  wrong- 
doing of  another. 

Another  axiom  is :  Obligation, — and  of  course 
sin, — is  limited  by  ability.  It  is  held  that  one  can- 
not be  required  to  do  what  he  has  no  power  to  do. 
So  firmly  is  this  position  maintained  that  the  ability 
to  repent  and  love  God  is  attributed  to  the  unaided 
will  of  man,  because  it  is  his  duty  to  repent  and 
love  God.  It  is  admitted  that  this  never  was  done 
by  the  unaided  will,  never  will  be  done,  is  a  moral 
impossibility,  yet  it  can  be  done,  for  ability  is  equal 
to  obligation. 

Another  of  the  New  England  axioms  is :  The 
cause  of  sin  cannot  itself  be  sin,  or  be  sinful.  Dr. 
N.  W.  Taylor  used  frequently  to  appeal  to  this  prin- 
ciple, and  say  every  one  knows  its  truthfulness  as 
well  as  he  knows  his  own  existence.  This  statement 
is  applied  more  particularly  to  the  first  sin.  The 
thought  may  perhaps  be  more  definitely  stated  thus: 
The  sinfulness  of  an  act  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  its 
cause.  Dr.  Stephen  West  makes  use  of  this  prin- 
ciple frequently  in  his  treatise  on  Moral  Agency. 
He  says : 

"  To  place  the  essence  of  virtue  and  vice,  not  in 
their  nature,  but  in  their  cause,  excludeth  all  possi- 
bility of  sin,  and  denies  it  to  be  conceivable  that  any 
such  event  should  ever  take  place.  According  to 
this  argument,  whatever  hath  a  cause  cannot  be  sin- 
ful, for  the   sinfulness   of  anything  lieth,  not   in  the 


100  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

nature  of  it,  but  in  its  cause.  That  which  hath  not 
a  cause,  but  is  self-existent,  cannot  be  sinful,  for  this 
as  well  as  other  reasons,  that  sinfulness  doth  not  lie 
in  the  nature  of  things,  but  in  their  cause.  But 
this,  by  supposition,  having  nothing  but  its  nature, 
or  what  is  to  be  found  in  the  nature  of  it,  predicable 
of  it ;  it  being  itself  without  a  cause ;  can  for  this 
reason  have  no  vice  charged  to  its  account.  That 
which  is  an  effect  cannot  be  vicious,  because  the 
viciousness  of  anything  is  to  be  charged  to  its  cause."  ^ 

This  principle  is  made  of  service  in  showing  that 
God,  while  he  foreordains  and  controls  sin,  is  not 
himself  sinful. 

ACCEPTED  FACTS  RELATING  TO  SIN. 

There  are  some  facts  concerning  sin  Avhich  New 
England  divines  are  agreed  upon  and  accept,  but 
accept  as  established  by  experience  rather  than  as 
involved  in  their  view  of  sin.  One  of  these  facts  is 
its  universality.  Pelagians  teach  that  Christ  is  not 
the  only  guiltless  member  of  the  human  family,  or 
that  it  may  be  he  is  not,  but  the  New  England 
theology,  though  sometimes  charged  with  Pelagianiz- 
ing  tendencies,  has  always  been  unequivocal  in  its 
assertion  of  the  fact  that  all  who  have  attained  to 
moral  agency  are  sinners. 

This  involves  another  fact,  which  yet  deserves  a 
separate  statement,  viz  :  that  the  first  moral  act  of 
every  hiunan  being  is  sinful.      Hopkins  says: 

"  A  child,  an  infant,  as  soon  as  he  exists,  may 
have  moral  corruption  or  sin.  As  soon  as  he  has 
any  mental  motion,  which  is  of  the  nature  of  inclina- 

1.    Moral  Agency,  p,  81. 


DOCTKINE  OF  SIN.  IQl 

tion,  this  motion,  disposition  or  inclination  may  be 
wrong,  and  have  in  it  the  foundation  and  seeas  of 
every  sin,  being  of  the  same  nature  with  the  sinful 
motions  and  inclinations  of  the  hearts  of  adult  per- 
sons. These  motions,  though  invisible  and  unper- 
ceived  by  us,  do  really,  and  in  the  sight  of  the 
omniscient  Being,  fix  the  actual  moral  character  of 
the  child,  which  discovers  itself  to  men  as  it  has 
opportunity,  and  there  is  capacity  to  express  it  in 
actions  and  words."  ^ 

Dr.  Emmons  said  it  was  as  easy  to  account  for 
the  sin  of  a  child  as  of  an  adult ;  that  God  could 
as  well  create  a  sinful  volition  in  one  as  in  the 
other.  Dr.  Taylor  denied  the  sinfulness  of  infants. 
He  differed  here  with  the  New  England  school.  The 
difference,  however,  was  as  to  the  commencement  of 
moral  agency.  Dr.  Smalley,  who  agreed  in  some 
points  with  the  old  Calvinists,  said  : 

"  They  (children)  evidently  discover  some  of  the 
same  depraved  dispositions  while  in  their  mother's 
arms,  which  are  more  terribly  acted  out  when  arrived 
to  riper  years."  ^ 

Another  doctrine  accepted  as  a  fact  by  these 
theologians  is  the  total  depravity  of  mankind.  Em- 
mons said  it  had  been  the  aim  of  his  ministry  to 
teach  that  the  hearts  of  sinners  are  by  nature  totally 
depraved.  That  sinners  do  not  perform  one  holy 
and  acceptable  act  until  they  exercise  pure,  disinter- 
ested love.      Hopkins  says : 

"  Mankind  are  born  totally  corrupt  and  sinful  in 
consequence    of   the    apostasy   of  Adam.       That  is, 

1.    I.  p.  224. 
2.    Sermons,  2,  p.  295. 


102         NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

they  have  naturally,  as  the  children  of  Adam,  no 
degree  or  kind  of  moral  rectitude,  and  their  hearts 
are  full  of  moral  evil/^  ^ 

Taylor  taught  the  same  doctrine,  though  he  took 
pains  to  distinguish  it  from  native  depravity.  This 
doctrine  is  held  in  a  way  to  satisfy  New  England 
theologians  when  it  is  held  that  each  moral  act  of 
the  unrenewed  man  is  in  some  degree  sinful.  There 
are  deficiencies  in  all  the  acts  of  the  unregenerate, 
whatever  excellences  they  may  possess,  which  exclude 
them  from  the  class  of  holy  deeds.  If  an  agent  is 
not  in  the  right  relation  to  God  his  act  is  not  in  a 
right  relation.  It  has  been  maintained  by  some,  as 
President  Finney,  that  every  unrenewed  man  is  as 
bad  as  he  can  be,  but  this  is  no  necessary  part  of 
the  doctrine. 

The  dependence  of  the  regenerate  on  divine  grace 
in  every  good  deed  proves  the  total  depravity  of  the 
natnral  man  as  clearly  as  his  defective  morals  prove  it. 

Another  accepted  fact  is  that  the  sins  of  all  men 
are  alike.  All  have  the  same  tendencies  of  heart, 
and  all  sin  in  the  same  way.  There  is  the  same 
selfishness,  greed,  intemperance,  self-indulgence  the 
world  over,  checked  and  modified,  indeed,  in  degree, 
but  the  same  in  kind  wherever  men  are  found. 

OEIGINAL  SIN 

The  New  England  view  of  original  sin  does  not 
require  prolonged  treatment.  It  is  simple  and  mod- 
est, and  does  not  attempt  philosophical  explanations. 
It  accepts  the   doctrine   of  native  depravity,   admits 

1.    I,  p.  226. 


DOCTKINE  OF  SIN.  103 

that  sin  pertains  to  the  race,  accepts  the  Scripture 
doctrine,  that  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
makes  the  sin  of  Adam  the  occasion  of  the  sin  of 
all  his  posterity  and  holds  all  actual  sin  to  be  the 
result  of  an  inherited  disposition.  It  gives  to  this 
evil  disposition  the  designation  of  original  sin,  except 
that  Dr.  Emmons  applied  the  term  to  the  eating  of 
the  forbidden  fruit. 

On  the  other  hand  these  theologians  denied  that 
original  sin  was  really  and  truly  sin,  but  considered 
it  a  tendency  toward  wrong,  in  itself  innocent.  This 
view  was  entertained  by  those  who  held  to  a  sub- 
stantial basis  with  inherent  tendencies  as  constituting 
the  soul.  But  Hopkins  and  Emmons  carried  their 
"exercise  scheme"  so  far  as  to  make  these  tendencies 
exercises  and  to  absorb  what  is  commonly  called 
original  sin  in  actual  sin.      Hopkins  says: 

"  Original  sin  is  that  total  moral  depravity  which 
takes  place  in  the  hearts  of  all  the  children  of  Adam, 
in  consequence  of  his  apostasy,  which  consists  in  ex- 
ercise or  act,  as  really  as  any  sin  can  do,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  distinguished  from  actual  sin."'' 

Again  he  infers  from  his  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

"  That  the  children  of  Adam  are  not  guilty  of  his 
sin,  are  not  punished,  and  do  not  suffer  for  that,  any 
further  than  they  implicitly  or  expressly  approve  of 
his  transgression  by  sinning  as  he  did;  tJbat  their 
total  moral  corruption  and  sinfulness  is  as  much  their 
own  sin,  and  as  criminal  in  them  as  it  could  be  if  it 
were  not  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  the  first  father 
of  the  human  race,  or  if  Adam  had  not  first  sinned."  ^ 

1.    1.,  p.  224.  2.    I.,  p.   235. 


104  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Emmons  was  not  behind  Hopkins  in  applying 
the  exercise  scheme.      He  says: 

"When  God  forms  the  souls  of  infants,  he  forms 
them  with  moral  powers,  and  makes  them  men  in 
miniature.  And  being  men  in  miniature,  he  works 
in  them  as  he  does  in  other  men,  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  his  good  pleasure ;  or  produces  those  moral 
exercises  in  their  hearts,  in  which  moral  depravity 
properly  and  essentially  consists."  ^ 

Both  Hopkins  and  Emmons,  in  these  extreme 
statements  of  the  exercise  principle,  use  language  that 
implies  the  existence  of  powers  before  the  sinful  exer- 
cise of  them.  Hopkins  says  that  depravity  takes 
place  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  Emmons  speaks  of  souls 
possessed  of  powers,  before  the  divine  working  upon 
them  which  produces  sin.  So  they  with  other  New 
England  divines  held  to  the  existence  of  powers  in  a 
state  of  innocence  but  sure  to  sin  in  their  first  activity, 
—  that  is,  activity  of  a  moral  character.  The  evil  ten- 
dencies of  these  powers  are  commonly  spoken  of  as 
original  sin,  but  the  two  divines  just  mentioned  ap- 
plied the  term  to  specific  acts,  and  therefore  made 
original  sin  actual  sin. 

The  New  England  divines, — ^those  who  would  be 
classed  as  strictly  of  the  New  School, — denied  that 
man's  depravity  came  from  Adam,  separated  men 
from  the  first  father,  as  to  moral  character,  and  made 
each  individual's  sinfulness  begin  with  himself.  They 
denied  the  Pelagian  doctrine  that  every  man  begins 
life  in  the  condition  of  the  unfallen  Adam,  but 
affirmed,  on  the  contrary,  that  his   state   at  birth  is 

1.    IV.,  p.  357. 


DOCTKINE  OF  SIN.  105 

that  of  fallen  and  apostate  humanity,  denying,  how- 
ever, the  Augustinian  explanation  that  men  fell  in 
Adam,  holding  that  each  person  stands  or  falls  for 
himself  alone.  They  denied  also  the  covenant  theory 
of  the  fall.  They  considered  the  idea  that  we  fall 
through  our  representative  not  proved,  and  really 
based  upon  a  wrong  view  of  God's  government. 
They  rejected  also  Edwards'  theory  of  a  divinely 
constituted  oneness  of  Adam  and  his  posterity.  This 
theory  they  considered  fanciful  and  far-fetched.  They 
however  retained  the  w^ord  ^^constituted,"  which 
Edwards  had  used,  and  affirmed  man's  fallen  state 
to  be  a  divine  constitution.      Hopkins  says: 

"That  God  connected  the  sinfulness  of  Adam's 
posterity  with  his  first  sin  by  a  just,  wise  and  good 
constitution." 

Here  the  New  England  philosophy  of  native  de- 
pravity and  original  sin  ends.  How  is  it  that  the 
race  is  sinful?     God  so  constituted  it  that  it  would  be. 

THE    EXERCISE    AND    TASTE  SCHEMES. 

The  speculative  scheme  of  doctrine  known  as  the 
exercise  scheme  grew  out  of  the  view  of  sin  as  active 
in  its  nature,  or  perhaps  of  sin  and  holiness  as  active 
in  their  nature.  In  opposition  to  it  was  set  forth 
the  taste  scheme.  The  two  terms  stand  in  contrast 
but  designate,  not  so  much  different  theological  doc- 
trines, as  summations  of  doctrines  based  on  different 
philosophical  views.  In  the  exercise  scheme  all 
moral  qualities  are  considered  active,  not  only  emo- 
tions and  passions,  but  a  bias,  a  tendency,  a  dispo- 
tion  is  considered  an  exercise.      So  far  perhaps  most 


106         NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

New  England  theologians  could  agree  or  compromise 
their  differences,  but  when  we  go  beyond  these  qual- 
ities some  would  say  there  is  a  faculty  of  the  soul, 
a  positive  entity  in  which  the  bias,  or  tendency,  or 
disposition  inheres,  others  pass  immediately  from 
these  and  from  all  moral  activities  to  the  divine 
action  upon  the  soul.  A  divine  activity  takes  the 
place  of  spiritual  substance  as  far  as  heart  action 
is  concerned.  It  may  be  that  some  would  claim  to 
hold  to  the  exercise  scheme  who  do  not  accept  this 
view  of  the  connection  between  divine  and  human 
action,  but  the  full  and  complete  scheme  involves 
the  connection  as  above  stated.  Dr.  Emmons,  the 
leader  of  the  adherents  of  the  exercise  scheme,  says : 

"  The  heart,  therefore,  which  is  the  seat  of  moral 
exercises,  consists  in  nothing  but  moral  exercises. 
It  certainly  does  not  consist  in  perception,  or  reason, 
or  conscience,  or  memory;  for  these  are  all  natural 
faculties,  which  are  totally  destitute  of  every  moral 
quality  to  which  praise  or  blame  can  be  attached; 
but  it  may  and  does  consist  in  loving  and  hating, 
in  choosing  and  refusing ;  for  these  are  free,  volun- 
tary exercises,  which  are  always  right  or  wrong,  and 
worthy  of  praise  or  blame.  Neither  reason  nor 
Scripture  affords  any  ground  to  suppose  that  the 
heart  consists  in  a  principle,  or  disposition,  or  taste, 
which  is  the  root,  or  source,  or  foundation  of  all 
free  and  voluntary  exercises.'^  ^ 

...  "It  is  God  who  worketh  in  men  both  to  will 
and  to  do.  Moral  exercises  flow  from  a  divine 
operation  upon  the  mind  of  a  moral  agent,  and  not 
from  any  natural  faculty,  principle  or  taste,  enabling 
him  to   originate   his   own  internal   exercises,  or  ex- 

1.    Works,  VI.  p.  408. 


DOCTKINE  OF  SIN.  107 

ternal  actions.  And  as  no  other  heart  than  that 
which  consists  in  moral  exercises  is  necessary,  in 
order  to  men's  doing  good  or  evil,  so  no  other  heart 
is  conceivable."  ^ 

Rev.  Asa  Burton,  D.D.,  born  in  1752,  pastor  of 
the  Congregational  Church  in  Thetford,  Vt.,  from 
1779  till  his  death  in  1836,  was  the  divine  whose 
name  is  most  prominently  connected  with  the  taste 
scheme.  He  was  one  of  the  ablest  theologians  of 
his  day,  and  much  resembled  President  Edwards  in 
his  method  of  argumentation  and  in  his  general  view 
of  the  Christian  doctrines.  He  uses  the  word  taste 
as  a  synonym  of  heart,  and  says : 

"  The  taste,  or  heart,  is  a  feeling  faculty." 
..."  The  heart  is  a  complex  faculty,  composed  of 
a  number  of  appetites  united.  *  *  *  The  appetites 
of  the  heart  are  the  principles  of  action,  w^hich  set 
all  the  wheels  in  motion.  They  govern  the  under- 
standing and  the  will,  and  all  our  external  actions. 
Take  these  away  and  men  w^ould  not  be  agents,  and 
good  and  evil  could  not  be  imputed  to  them."  ^ 

He  probably  had  Emmons  in  mind  when  he  wrote 
the  following  : 

"On  supposition  the  heart  is  not  a  faculty,  and 
is  nothing  but  those  exercises,  w^hich  many  call  im- 
manent and  imperate  in  succession,  it  is  very  evi- 
dent on  this  ground  that  men  must  be  in  a  state  of 
indifference  previous  to  choice,  and  the  influence  of 
motives  is  excluded.  *  *  *  Hence  the  defenders  of 
the  exercise  scheme  and  Arminians  must  agree  in 
two  particulars.      First,  that  voluntary  exercises  may 

1.    Works,  V,  p.  138.         2.    Essays,  p.  167. 


108  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

exist,  when  the  mind  is  in  a  state  of  perfect  indiffer- 
ence ;  and  secondly,  that  motives  have  no  influence 
in  choosing ;  or  that  the  influence  of  motives  is 
wholly  excluded.  And  of  course  the  only  difference 
in  this  particular,  between  Arminians  and  those 
on  the  exercise  scheme,  respects  the  cause  of  volun- 
tary exercise.  The  former  say,  it  is  produced  by  a 
self-determining  power  in  man;  the  latter  say,  it  is 
produced  by  the  immediate  agency  of  God."  ^ 

It  is  probable  that  most  of  the  New  England 
Calvinists  at  the  present  time  would  accept  the 
taste  scheme  to  the  extent  implied  in  the  following 
language  of  President  Dwight : 

"  The  Spirit  of  God  does  not,  in  my  view,  when 
he  regenerates  mankind,  create  in  them  any  volition 
whatever ;  but  merely  communicates  to  them  the 
relish  for  spiritual  objects,  which  has  been  here  men- 
tioned. *  ^  *  The  relish  for  spiritual  objects  is  that 
which  in  the  Scriptures  is  called  a  new  heart,  a  right 
spirit,  an  honest  and  good  heart,  a  spiritual  mind, 
and  denoted  by  several  other  names  of  a  similar  im- 
port." 2 

EMMONSISM. 

This  is  the  proper  place  to  refer  to  Emmonsism, 
though  the  term  came  into  use  at  a  later  kiate  than 
that  of  the  discussions  above  noticed,  and  never  des- 
ignated a  scheme  of  theology.  It  was  an  intense 
development  of  a  single  point  of  Hopkinsianism,  and 
of  Edwardeanism  as  well.  Emmons'  predecessors 
did  not  treat  of  the  point  as  directly  as  he,  but  his 
view  is  really  implied  in  some  of  their  assertions. 
All  these  theologians,  including  Emmons  himself,  at 

1.    pp.  204,  205.  2.    Theology  II,  pp.  419,  420. 


EMMONSISM.  109 

times  use  expressions  hardly  consistent  with  the 
view,  but  on  the  whole  it  may  be  attributed  to  them. 
The  term  is  applied  to  the  co-operation  of  God  and 
man  in  all  human  moral  conduct.  It  is  held  that 
any  work  of  man — it  is  sufficient  here  to  say  any 
moral  work — is  performed  by  God  and  by  man,  may 
be  attributed  to  either,  and  that  men  are  responsible 
for  the  deed,  while  God  performs  it  in  fulfilment  of 
his  own  purposes.  Consequently  men  may  be  re- 
quired to  perform  any  moral  duty  without  the  assur- 
ance that  God  will  work  with  them,  but  with  the 
assurance  that  they  will  only  do  it  by  his  working 
with  them.      Dr.  Jacob  Ide,  in  his  Memoir,  says: 

"Dr.  Emmons  discovered,  what  it  is  strange  no 
one  ever  discovered  before,  that  man  is  active  while 
acted  upon.  *  *  ^  He  believed  that  God  exercised  a 
real,  a  universal  and  a  constant  agency  over  all  his 
intelligent  creatures,  and  that  at  the  same  time  they 
enjoyed  the  most  perfect  freedom  conceivable."  ^ 

Dr.  Emmons  says  of  Adam : 

"  His  first  sin  was  a  free  voluntary  exercise,  pro- 
duced by  a  divine  operation  in  view  of  motives. 
Satan  placed  certain  motives  before  his  mind,  which, 
by  a  divine  energy  took  hold  of  his  heart  and  led 
him  into  sin."^ 

In  the  immediate  connection  he  says  : 

"Moral  agents  can  never  act  but  only  as  they 
are  acted  upon  by  a  divine  operation." 

1.    Emmons'  Works,  I,  Ixxix. 
2.    Ibid.,  IV.,  p.  356. 


110        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

The  new  school  divines  did  not  all  adopt  this 
view  though  it  grows  naturally  out  of  Hopkinsianism 
and  is  akin  to  much  that  Edwards  wrote.  Dr. 
Smalley  wrote  an  elaborate  criticism  of  this  scheme, 
which  mil  be  found  in  the  appendix  to  his  volume 
of  sermons,  published  at  Middletown  in  1814.  Rev. 
Thomas  Andrus,  a  pastor  at  Berkeley,  Mass.,  wrote 
in  opposition  to  the  peculiar  views  of  Emmons.  He 
says  the  term  New  England  divine  has  become  well- 
nigh  a  reproach  in  Old  England ;  says  he  remem- 
bers when  Dr.  Emmons'  sermon  on  Phil.  2  :  12,  was 
handed  around  in  manuscript,  and  it  was  said  "  the 
world  was  not  yet  ready  to  receive  it."  He  avows 
himself  a  new  divinity  man,  but  protests  against  the 
idea  that  "  God  operates  directly  on  the  mind  to  in- 
cite men  to  yield  to  the  allurements  to  sin."  Still 
this  view  was  tolerated  by  the  later  Hopkinsians  and 
was  recognized  as  growing  out  of  their  system. 
Professor  Park,  in  his  Memoir  of  Hopkins,  says  : 

"As  early,  then,  as  1767,  the  germ  of  Emmon- 
ism  was  found  in  the  New  Divinity." 

Referring  to  a  letter  of  Dr.  Hopkins  to  Dr.  West, 
Prof.  Park  adds  : 

"This  letter  proves  that  the  Exercise  Scheme, 
which  took  no  notice  of  (whether  or  not  it  allowed 
the  existence  of)  any  nature  or  state  back  of  the 
will,  was  not  an  invention  of  Dr.  Emmons."  ^ 

It  can  be  safely  maintained  that  the  doctrine  of 
divine  efficiency — the  prevalence  of  the  Infinite  Will 

1.    Hopkins'  Works,  I.  p.  200. 


EMMONS  111 

— coming  down  from  Edwards,  with  the  "improve- 
ments'^ which  followed,  especially  those  concerning 
the  active  nature  of  sin  and  \'irtue,  involved  the 
scheme  known  as  Emmonsism. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  refer  to  the  life  of 
Emmons,  so  well  known  is  he  to  all  who  are  inter- 
ested in  Congregationalism.  For  the  sake  of  defin- 
iteness  as  to  prominent  facts,  the  follomng  may  not 
be  unacceptable  :  Nathanael  Emmons  was  born  at 
East  Haddam,  Conn.,  April  20,  1745,  was  gradu- 
ated at  Yale  College  in  1767,  was  licensed  to  preach 
in  1769,  and  settled  as  pastor  in  Franklin,  Mass., 
1773.  His  active  pastorate  in  that  church  embraced 
twenty-seven  years  in  the  last  century  and  twenty- 
seven  in  the  present  century.  He  retained  the 
pastoral  relation  till  his  death  in  1840.  He  studied 
theology  with  Eev.  Nathan  Strong,  of  Coventry, 
Conn.,  and  after Avards  with  Dr.  John  Smalley.  He 
was  at  first  inclined  to  Arminianism,  then  adopted 
the  view^s  of  the  Old  Calvinists,  but  under  the 
teaching  of  Smalley  became  a  Hopkinsian.  He 
combined  great  acuteness  of  intellect  with  capacity 
for  prolonged  labor  and  methodical  habits  of  study, 
and  became,  i3robably,  the  most  facile  sermonizer 
that  New  England  has  ever  produced.  He  was  an 
enigma  to  his  own  generation  as  he  has  been  to  his 
followers.  Some  have  thought  he  made  the  soul  a 
series  of  exercises,  others  have  denied  it.  Some  have 
thought  he  made  God  the  author  of  sin,  others  have 
defended  him  as  not  going  beyond  the  ordinary  doc- 
trine of  decrees ;  he  taught  that  God  creates  all 
holy  affections  in  the  hearts  of  men,  but  when  asked 


112        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

why  he  could  not  create  them  in  the  back  of  a  chair, 
he  thought  the  question  too  silly  to  be  answered. 
But  we  could  wish  that  he  had  pointed  out  the  lim- 
itations of  creative  power.  He  taught  that  it  is  as 
easy  for  a  sinner  to  obey  God  as  to  perform  any 
other  act,  and  that  he  is  guilty  for  not  doing  so,  yet 
taught  that  to  suppose  he  could  obey  except  as  God 
created  the  obedience,  was  to  suppose  him  to  be 
divine. 

His  conversation  was  fascinating,  his  friends  loved 
to  sit  with  him  in  his  leisure  hours  and  listen  to  his 
pithy  remarks,  yet  there  seems  to  have  been  some 
risk  in  presuming  on  a  friendly  acquaintance  or  in 
indulging  too  much  curiosity.  Some  of  his  repartees 
seem  to  have  been  blunt  rather  than  sharp  or  witty. 
His  tendency  of  mind  was  strongly  theological,  he 
was  the  instructor  of  eighty-seven  young  men  who 
entered  the  ministry.  His  sermons  doctrinal,  polit- 
ical, biographical,  will  always  be  of  interest  to  intel- 
ligent readers.  His  works  have  been  published  in 
carefully  prepared  editions,  once  in  1842,  again  in 
1861,  each  time  in  six  large  octavo  volumes.  Each 
edition  was  accompanied  by  an  extended  biography. 

in. 

EESPONSIBILITY. 

When  Edwards  came  to  the  rescue  of  Calvinism 
he  drew  out  at  great  length  the  distinction  between 
natural  and  moral  ability,  or,  more  strictly,  between 
natural  and  moral  inability.  The  Arminians  asked; 
how,  if  the  will  is  controlled  by  motives,  can  one  be 


KESPONSIBILITY.  113 

responsible  for  his  choices  ?  They  said,  the  will  must 
be  free,  have  control  over  its  choices,  or  one  should  not 
be  held  accountable  for  them.  This  ever-living  ques- 
tion Edwards  treated  in  this  way:  when  one  is 
unable  to  perform  a  deed  because  of  a  lack  of  natural 
power,  he  is  not  responsible  for  the  performance  of 
it,  but  when  he  is  unable  because  of  a  disinclination 
to  perform  it,  he  is  responsible,  and  his  disinclina- 
tion is  no  excuse  for  his  failure.  In  this  case  the 
inability  is  a  moral  one,  for  the  man  could  do  the 
work  if  he  had  a  mind  to.  Edwards  held  that  we 
fail  in  our  religious  duties  simply  because  of  a  moral 
inability.  Although  the  causes  in  the  moral  and 
religious  world  are  as  surely  effective  as  physical 
causes,  still  they  do  not  lessen  the  responsibility  of 
the  one  under  their  power.  One  has  the  faculties 
in  the  exercise  of  which  he  can  love  his  neighbor  as 
himself,  therefore  he  has  no  excuse  for  not  so  loving 
even  his  worst  enemy,  though  he  cannot  prevail 
upon  himself  to  do  it.  Edwards'  successors  have 
adopted  his  views  and  made  large  and  continued  use 
of  them.  The  distinction  between  natural  and  moral 
inability,  though  it  did  not  originate  with  Edwards, 
has  been  so  appropriated  and  put  to  service  by  his 
successors  that  it  seems  almost  a  possession  of  New 
England.  That  the  moral  character  of  a  deed  is  in 
its  nature,  or  is  an  inherent  quality,  and  is  not  to 
be  traced  to  its  source,  has  become  an  axiom. 

DR.  SMALLEY's  exposition  OF    RESPONSIBILITY. 

These  thoughts  have  been  elaborated  by  our  theo- 
logians again  and  again,  but  Dr.  John  Smalley,  by 


114        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

general  consent,  has  presented  the  fullest  and  most 
cogent  argument  on  this  subject,  and  we  may  accept 
his  treatise  as  the  substance  of  all  that  has  been 
written  upon  it.  Prof.  Park  says  of  the  two  sermons 
in  which  he  presented  his  views,  that  they  had  an 
epochal  influence.  They  were  received  with  favor 
in  England  as  well  as  in  this  country.  The  sub- 
stance of  them  is  to  be  found  in  JSTo.  26  of  the 
Doctrinal  Tracts  of  the  Boston  Tract  Society,  from 
which  the  following  summation  of  his  views  is  taken. 
His  main  object  is,  first,  to  show  the  utter  helpless- 
ness of  men  while  justly  required  to  comply  with 
the  demands  of  the  gospel,  and,  second,  to  lead  them 
to  trust  in  Christ  for  salvation.      He  says: 

"  There  is  a  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  many,  how 
to  reconcile  the  total  helplessness  of  sinners  with  the 
sincerity  of  tlie  gospel  call,  or  with  the  justice  of 
men's  being  condemned  and  punished  for  their  im- 
penitence and  unbelief.  And  indeed  it  does  seem 
as  if  men  could  not  be  to  blame  for  not  doing  im- 
possibilities ;  nor  should  we  in  other  cases  think 
there  was  much  kindness  or  sincerity  in  offering  a 
favor  on  conditions  that  were  known  to  be  imprac- 
ticable.'' 1 

And  he  adds  : 

"  Until  this  difficulty  can  be  fairly  got  over  in 
the  minds  of  people,  it  seems  impossible  they 
should,  in  their  consciences,  justify  God,  or  condemn 
themselves  as  he  condemns  them ;  or  that  they 
should  understand  either  the  justice  of  the  divine 
law  or  the  grace  of  the  gospel."  ^ 

1.    p.  1.  2.    p.  2. 


RESPONSIBILITY.  115 

He  thinks  the  difficulty  can  be  removed  only  by 
recourse  to  the  fact  that  there  are  two  entirely  differ- 
ent senses  in  which  men  are  incapable  of  performing 
an  act ;  one  may  be  under  a  natural  inability,  or  he 
may  be  under  a  moral  inability,  to  perform  the  deed. 

These  are  ^^so  different,  that  the  one,  however 
great,  does  not  lessen  moral  obligation  in  the  least; 
whereas  the  other,  so  far  as  it  obtains,  destroys  obli- 
gation, and  takes  away  all  desert  of  blame  and  pun- 
ishment entirely.  Moral  inability  consists  only  in  the 
Avant  of  a  heart,  or  disposition,  or  will  to  do  a  thing. 
Natural  inability  consists  in,  or  arises  from,  want  of 
understanding,  bodily  strength,  opportunity,  or  what- 
ever may  prevent  our  doing  a  thing  when  we  are 
willing,  and  strongly  enough  disposed  to  do  it.''  ^ 

The  doctrine  of  Smalley  is  that  this  moral  inabil- 
ity renders  one  as  incapable  of  performing  a  deed  as 
natural  inability  does,  yet  famishes  no  excuse  for  its 
non-performance. 

"  It  is  certain  that  want  of  a  heart  or  inclination 
to  do  a  thing,  may  be,  and  is,  as  inconsistent  with 
our  doing  it,  as  anything  else  could  be.  Covetous- 
ness  is  as  inconsistent  with  liberality  as  poverty  is, 
and  may  as  effectually  hinder  a  man  from  doing 
deeds  oi  charity.''  ^ 

The  necessity  imposed  upon  us  by  moral  ability 
or  inability  is  expressed  thus: 

^^Our  free  and  moral  actions  are,  and  must  be,  as 
invariably  guided  and  dictated  by  our  minds,  as  they 
are    limitea    and    bounded    by    our    natural    power. 

1.    p.  6.  2.     p.  8. 


116  NEW   ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

That  is,  every  one  must  act  out  his  own  nature  and 
choice ;  otherwise  he  does  not  act  himself;  he  is  not 
an  agent."  ^ 

..."  Sinners  of  the  most  exalted  genius  and  strength 
of  mind  are  certainly  no  more  able  to  make  them- 
selves new  creatures  than  the  weakest  are.  And  the 
reason  of  this  is  as  obvious  as  the  fact  is  certain, 
viz :  because  whatever  strength  any  one  has,  he 
always  lays  it  out  according  to  his  own  heart,  and 
not  contrary  to  it.  Consequently  all  the  strength  of 
men  and  angels,  yea  even  omnipotence  itself,  if  the 
sinner  had  the  direction  of  it,  would  never  make 
him  good."  ^ 

Still  Smalley  holds  that  this  moral  necessity  is 
no  extenuation  of  the  sinner's  guilt.      He  asks : 

"  Because  a  man  must  act  according  to  his  own 
heart,  or  as  he  pleases,  does  this  destroy  his  free- 
dom? It  is  the  very  thing  in  which  all  free  agency 
consists."  ^ 

.  .  .  "An  inability,  therefore,  to  act  otherwise  than 
according  to  our  own  minds,  is  only  an  inability  to 
act  otherwise  than  as  free  agents."  ^ 
.  .  .  "  A  man's  heart  being  fully  set  in  him  to  do 
evil,  does  not  render  his  evil  actions  the  less  crimi- 
nal ;  nor  does  the  strength  of  a  virtuous  disposition 
render  a  good  action  the  less,  but  the  more,  amiable, 
and  worthy  of  praise."  ^ 

This  is  the  position  on  which  he  plants  himself: 
that  men  are  responsible  for  their  conduct  because 
they  do  as  they  please,  and  that  it  is  no  extenuation 
of  their  conduct  in  wrong  doing  that  only  the  wrong 
pleases  them,  that  they  are   so  constituted    that  the 

1.    p.  8.  2.    p.  22.        3.     p.  9.        4.    p.  19.        5.    p.  10. 


EESPONSIBILITY.  117 

right  cannot  please  them,  and  that  such  is  the  nature 
of  morals  that  one's  pleasure,  or  preference,  or  pre- 
vailing inclination,  or  will,  determines  character, — 
the  will  is  the  deed.  This  view  he  defends  earnest- 
ly and  determinedly.  He  does  not  admit  that  the 
unregenerate  man  may  be  excused  for  failing  in 
deeds  that  imply  real  holiness  of  heart,  while  he  is 
inexcusable  for  neglect  of  duties  which  he  can  perform, 
such  as  prayer  and  the  study  of  the  Scriptures. 
He  says  that  either  the  natural  abilities  of  men  are 
the  measure  of  their  duty  or  their  moral  ability  is 
the  measure.  That  moral  power  should  be  the 
measure  of  duty  is  absurd, 'for  then  a  want  of  incli- 
nation would  excuse  one  from  doing  anything  he 
does  not  do,  and  there  Avould  be  no  such  thing  as 
blame  and  desert  of  punishment. 

He  does  not  admit  that  there  is  any  force  in  the 
plea  which  men  sometimes  make,  "  That  they  did  not 
bring  their  depravity  upon  themselves,  but  were  born 
with  it.  If  their  hearts  are  altogether  sinful,  they 
did  not  make  them  so,  nor  is  it  their  fault ;  they  have 
only  such  hearts  as  were  given  them,  without  their 
choice  or  consent."  This  argument,  he  says,  makes 
sin  simply  a  weakness,  overlooks  the  fact  that  a 
Avicked  heart  is  faulty  in  its  own  nature ;  implies  that 
it  is  no  sin  to  be  a  sinner,  but  that  the  sin  is  in 
producing  the  sinfid  disposition.  It  really  makes 
the  first  sin  the  only  sin,  and  Adam  guilty  because 
he  sinned  with  a  holy  heart.  "We  conceive  Adam 
to  blame,  because  of  the  uprightness  of  his  heart ;  and 
ourselves  blameless  because  our  hearts  are  so  wicked.''^ 

1.     p.  41. 


118        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Smalley  also  affirms,  that  it  is  nothing  in  the  sinner's 
favor,  no  extenuation  of  guilt,  that  he  is  unable  to 
change  his  own  heart.  The  idea  of  his  changing  his 
heart  implies  again,  as  he  holds,  that  sin  is  a  mis- 
fortune. It  supposes  that  an  evil  disposition  is  an 
object  on  which  one  can  work  for  the  purpose  of 
effecting  a  change,  without  regarding  the  fact  that  it 
is  the  principle  from  which  one  works.  This  idea 
supposes  that  an  evil  disposition  is  a  misfortune  which 
one  may  strive  to  remove,  while  it  is  really  a  force 
w^hich  is  continually  acting  out  its  nature.  Acting 
out  self  is  serving  self  instead  of  God,  and  is  there- 
fore sinful,  and  it  never  can  suppress  and  extermi- 
nate itself, — rather  it  promotes  itself — therefore  one 
is  helpless  in  his  sin.  The  inability  and  the  sin  are 
inseparably  bound  together. 

These  views  seem  to  accord  with  extreme  Hop- 
kinsianism — to  be  noticed  hereafter, —  in  demanding, 
that  a  holy  heart  be  sought  in  a  holy  way,  or  that 
the  pursuit  of  righteousness  proceeds  from  a  righteous 
heart,  as  a  life  of  sin  proceeds  from  a  wicked  heart. 
In  accord  with  this  position,  he  says : 

"There  can  be  no  reasonable  objection  against 
God,  because  he  gives  no  promise  of  salvation  on 
lower  terms  than  an  actual  compliance  with  the  gospel.'' 

He  repels  with  impatience  the  thought  which 
many  entertain,  that  God  mocks  men  in  their  misery 
by  offering  salvation  on  such  a  condition,  when  "he 
knows  that  no  unregenerate  sinner  can  come  up  to 
such  terms,  any  more  than  he  can  make  a  world."^ 

1.    p.  46. 


KESPONSIBILITY.  Hg 

Yet  his  exhortations  and  assurances  addressed  to  the 
impenitent  seem  to  be  founded  on  ideas  at  variance 
with  an  absolute  inability  and  to  accord  with  some 
of  the  appeals  of  President  Edwards  which  have  been 
already  alluded  to.  He  says  in  reference  to  the  in- 
structions to  be  given  to  the  impenitent: 

^^It  is  easy  to  direct  them  to  the  course  they 
ought  to  take ;  and  it  would  be  easy  to  put  them  in 
a  way  in  which  they  might  have  great  reason  to  hope 
for  salvation,  if  they  thought  it  a  matter  worth  tak- 
ing pains  about,  and  were  of  a  teachable  spirit  and 
willing  to  follow  good  advice."  ^ 

After  this  he  falls  back  into  his  Hopkinsianism 
again.  Later  he  seems  to  take  both  sides  in  these 
words : 

"!N'or  need  you  be  discouraged  by  reason  of  any 
bad  disposition  brought  upon  you  by  Adam,  which 
you  are  heartily  sorry  for,  and  would  be  glad  to  be 
rid  of,  but  cannot.  For  the  second  Adam  is  able  to 
help  you  in  this  as  well  as  in  other  respects;  and 
will  do  it  in  a  moment,  if  you  in  the  least  degree 
really  desire  it."  ^ 

Logical  consistency  would  require  him  to  demand 
of  every  man  to  live,  from  this  instant,  without  aid, 
in  the  exercise  of  his  natural  ability,  a  holy  life 
from  the  promptings  of  a  holy  heart.  ^ 

DR.  SMALLEY  AND  GOVERXOR  TREADWELL. 

Dr.  Smalley  was  considered  the  chief  expounder 
of   the    doctrines   of  ability  and   inability    after  the 

1.    p.  45.  2.    p.  47.  3.    p.  39. 


120       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

publication  of  his  two  sermons  on  that  subject  in 
1769.  During  his  long  pastorate  in  New  Britain, 
from  1757  to  1810,  perhaps  till  near  his  death,  at 
the  age  of  eighty-six,  in  1820,  he  was  regarded  an 
authoritative  teacher  of  the  new  divinity.  His  many 
pupils  in  theology  entertained  for  him  the  highest 
esteem.  Dr.  Leonard  Bacon  has  referred  to  him  as 
belonging  to  the  small  class  of  theologians  who,  go- 
ing beyond  scholastic  attainments,  are  known  as 
original  thinkers.  More  than  thirty  years  after  the 
publication  of  the  above  named  sermons  he  was 
looked  to  as  the  proper  person  to  reply  to  certain 
published  articles  of  Governor  Treadwell.  In  the 
year  1806  the  Governor  had  sent  forth,  through  the 
Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine,  a  series  of  articles 
on  moral  inability,  which  caused  no  small  sensation. 
He  began  his  first  article  by  referring  to  the  gen- 
erally accepted  position  that  the  change  in  man  in 
the  new  birth  is  moral  not  physical;  that  it  is  pre- 
dicable  of  the  will  and  affections  only,  and  not  of 
the  intellect  or  other  natural  faculties.      He  adds: 

"But  though  the  change  in  its  main  character  be 
moral,  it  will  not  follow  that  there  is  no  change  in 
the  nature  of  the  subject  as  the  ground  of  holy 
affections,  and  if  such  change  be  supposed,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  so  far  it  is  physical.^^^ 

He  says  again: 

"Agency  or  volition  producing  a  visible  effect  is 
not  so  properly  holiness  or  sin  as  the  evidence  of 
it."  2 

1.    Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine,  VI,  p.  361. 
2.    Ibid,  VI,  p.  3G8. 


EESPONSIBILITY.      ^  121 

In  summing  up  his  work  in  reply  to  opponents 
he  says: 

"It  was  the  writer's  main  object  to  state  the  in- 
abilty  of  the  sinner  to  love  and  serve  God  and  to 
show  that  he  is  blameworthy  and  accountable,  even 
on  the  supposition  that  a  physical  as  well  as  a  moral 
change  were  necessary  to  enable  him  to  do  so."  ^ 

He  held  that  blame  does  not  rise  from  power  to  do 
otherwise  if  a  wrong  act  is  performed,  but  from  this, 
that  one's  temper  is  itself  evil.  "Nothing  seems  nec- 
essary to  blameworthiness  but  that  the  subject  should 
be  capable  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  should  in  fact 
be  destitute  of  love  to  him  and  to  his  creatures.''  The 
love  here  demanded  he  did  not  consider  an  act  of 
will  or  a  product  of  will,  but  held  that  "  our  affec- 
tions are  what  they  are  by  a  law  of  nature  which  is 
independent  of  our  volitions  and  prior  to  them." 
He  carried  out  fully  the  theory  that  the  blameworth- 
iness of  an  act  or  state  is  in  its  nature,  not  in  its 
cause.  The  tenor  of  the  articles  before  us  carries 
the  impression  that  Governor  Treadwell  was  appre- 
hensive, that  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  to  repent, 
and  the  doctrine  that  moral  inability  is  simply  un- 
willingness, would  lead  men  to  think  they  could 
repent  at  any  time.  The  falsity  and  danger 
of  this  impression  he  desired  to  expose.  He  be- 
became  aware  that  his  first  article  had  roused  the 
feelings  of  theologians  and  awakened  some  opposi- 
tion, and  he  published  a  second  article  five  months 
later,  explaining  and  confirming  the  positions  he  had 

1 .    Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine,  VII,  p.  204. 


122  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

already   taken.      The   latter   article  contains   nothing 
essentially  new. 

One  month  after  the  appearance  of  the  second 
article  Dr.  Smalley,  then  in  his  seventy-third  year, 
made  a  brief  reply  to  the  essays  of  Governor  Tread- 
well.  In  his  view  the  Governor  had  set  aside  the 
distinctions  between  natural  and  moral  inability,  had 
failed  to  make  natural  inability  an  adequate  excuse  for 
the  non-performance  of  a  proposed  act,  had  failed  to 
attribute  man's  entire  guilt  to  his  moral  inability. 
This  he  considered  dangerous  teaching.  He  said,  if 
there  is  no  diiference  between  wickedness  and  weak- 
ness in  excusing  human  conduct  all  is  midnight 
darkness.  The  author  of  the  essays  had  said  that 
the  doctrine  that  natural  inability  excuses  must  be 
taken  with  limitations.  The  reviewer  said  it  would 
be  injustice  in  God  to  require  of  men  that  which  they 
had  no  ability  to  perform.      He  said : 

"  It  is  very  necessary  that  sinners  should  be 
made  sensible,  not  only  tnat  they  have  not  every  kind 
of  power,  perfectly  to  keep  the  commandments  of 
God,  or  truly  to  comply  with  the  gospel  while  unre- 
generate,  but  also  that  they  have  some  kind  of 
power  to  do  both,  whether  regenerate  or  not.''  ^ 

The  power  they  possess  is  the  natural  ability 
which  God  has  bestowed  upon  them,  their  inability 
is  the  carnal  heart  which  is  enmity  against  God. 
Men  are  excusable  for  failing  to  do  that  for  which 
they  have  no  natural  ability,  and  this  principle 
avails  without  limitation,  they  are  not  excusable  for 

1.    Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine,  VII,  p.  121. 


RESPONSIBILITY.  123 

failing  in  that  for  which  enmity  of  heart  disables 
tliem.  If  one  were  not  to  blame  for  the  inability 
which  his  wickedness  produces,  then  his  sin  would 
be  his  justification,  and  the  worse  his  character  the 
more  innocent  he  would  be.  The  distinction,  there- 
fore, between  natural  and  moral  inability  is  a  sound 
one,  and  one  which  should  be  rigorously  maintained. 
He  admitted  that  this  distinction  is  not  of  conse- 
quence as  "  affording  relief  to  those  dead  in  sin  or 
information  how,  by  their  own  efforts,  to  become 
alive  to  God,"  but  of  great  consequence  in  vindi- 
cating the  justice  of  God  in  his  dealings  with  men. 
The  inability  of  the  sinner  to  turn  to  God  is  as 
absolute  as  it  would  be  if  it  were  natural,  but  since 
it  is  simply  his  own  sin  his  condemnation  is  just. 

Dr.  Smalley  considered  the  doctrine  of  moral  in- 
ability a  most  humilating  one.  It  is,  as  he  thought, 
most  repulsive  to  the  sinner,  since  it  abases  his  pride 
most  profoundly,  but  it  should  be  preached  boldly 
since  it  is  the  most  direct  means  of  leading  one  to 
self-renunciation. 

"A  heart-felt  conviction  of  one's  total  helpless- 
ness and  utter  inexcusableness  at  the  same  time  and 
in  the  same  respects,  is  therefore  the  last  preparatory 
step  in  order  to  a  sinner's  being  brought  out  of  dark- 
ness into  God's  marvellous  light  by  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost." 

Governor  Treadwell  had  used  the  word  physical 
to  describe  the  change  in  regeneration,  had  spoken  of 
moral  inability  as  rising  from  nature  and  had  said; 

"If  there  is  no  connection  between  the  doings  of 
the   unregenerate   and    spiritual   blessings    or   a   new 


124  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

heart,  (which  he  took  for   granted)  then   the    impo- 
tency  of  sinners  is  physical  as  well  as  moral."  ^ 

Dr.  Smalley  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  use  the 
term  physical  in  speaking  of  the  change  effected  in 
regeneration,  he  said  we  do  not  speak  of  God's  moral 
attributes  as  physical,  and  he  can  produce  moral 
effects  in  the  human  soul,  immediately  which  are  not 
to  be  considered  physical.  We  are  not  to  compare 
the  soul  to  the  soil  or  to  vegetables ;  to  speak  of  it 
as  good-natured  or  ill-natured  is  designating  its  moral 
not  physical  quality.  In  the  use  of  the  word  physical 
neither  of  these  writers  was  sufficiently  explicit,  es- 
pecially may  this  be  said  of  Dr.  Smalley. 

Governor  Treadwell  wrote  a  third  article  making 
a  brief  reply  to  the  strictures  of  his  reviewer,  in 
which  he  re-affirmed  his  positions  but  added  nothing 
material  to  his  previous  utterances.  He  made  it 
evident,  however,  that  he  thought  the  reviewer  had 
not  been  wholly  complimentary  in  his  incidental 
allusions. 

Professor  Denison  Olmsted,  of  Yale  College,  pub- 
lished an  article  on  Governor  Treadwell  in  the 
American  Quarterly  Register,  in  February,  1843. 
He  inserted  in  this  paper  a  sketch  of  the  religious 
life  and  character  of  Governor  Treadwell,  prepared  by 
Dr.  Porter,  of  Farmington,  who  had  been  the  Govern- 
or's pastor  for  nearly  twenty  years.  Dr.  Porter,  in 
alluding  to  the  discussion  just  noticed,  intimates  that 
Dr.  Smalley's  paper  was  not  considered  very  satis- 
factory, and  asks.  How  could  he  reply  to  the  posi- 
tions taken  by  the  Governor  ?    He  says  both  believed 

1.    Connecticut  Evangelical  Magazine,  VII,  p.  91. 


KESPONSIBILITY.  125 

that  man's  depravity  does  not  consist  primarily  in 
the  want  of  will  to  obey  God,  but  in  a  state  of 
mind,  a  constitutional  bias  w^hich  gives  direction  and 
character  to  acts  of  the  will.  ^  Governor  Treadwell 
believed  this  and  believed  that  the  inability  here 
involved  was  physical  and  natural.  Dr.  Porter 
expressed  the  opinion  that  the  two  disputants  really 
agreed,  except  that  the  civilian-theologian  called 
things  by  their  right  names. 

\yherever  the  truth  may  have  been  in  this  case, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Dr.  Smalley's  positions 
were  the  Edwardean  positions,  and  that  they  were 
clearly  and  strongly  stated. 

The  view  of  responsibility  which  has  now  been 
presented,  has  not  been  satisfactory  to  all  theolo- 
gians, not  even  to  all  New  England  theologians. 
There  is  a  reluctance  to  admit  that  responsibility  is 
to  be  utterly  separated  from  causality.  In  what  did 
the  virtue  of  the  good  Samaritan  consist?  \Yas  it 
simply  in  being  moved  with  compassion  that  he 
differed  from  the  priest  and  the  Levite?  Did  his 
virtue  reach  its  acme  and  become  complete  while  he 
was  passively  influenced  by  an  object  of  pity,  before 
he  had  put  forth  any  act  of  freedom?  Edwards 
answers  this  question  in  the  affirmative,  and  is  much 
praised  by  his  son  for  discovering  that  the  moral 
character  of  a  deed  lies  in  its  nature,  not  in  its 
cause.  Dr.  Stephen  West  coincided  with  this  view 
and  it  has  at  times  been  affirmed  by  the  leading 
theologians  of  the  Edwards  school.  The  doctrine  is 
by  no  means    confined  to  the   Eastern  States.      Dr. 

1.    See  page  239. 


126  NEW  ENGlvAND  THEOLOGY. 

Hodge  says :  "  Malignity  is  evil  and  love  is  good, 
whether  concreated,  innate,  acquired  or  infused/^ 

But  it  is  an  irrepressible  tendency  of  the  mind  to 
connect  moral  character  with  a  causal  force,  with  an 
energy  that,  with  design,  is  the  efficient  cause  of 
the  moral  act.  It  is  not  granted  by  all  and  at  all 
times  that  a  motive  like  pity  or  love  is  the  sole 
cause  of  a  moral  act,  but  it  is  maintained  that  there 
is  a  spiritual  subjective  force  in  the  agent  to  which 
causation  may  be  attributed.  It  is  held  by  many 
that  we  stood  our  probation  in  Adam,  and  that  he 
brought  guilt  on  himself  and  his  posterity  by  an 
act  performed  when  left  to  the  freedom  of  his  own 
will,  the  guilt  of  his  free  deed,  due  to  his  causative 
and  originating  force,  being  imputed  to  us,  since  he 
was  our  representative  and  covenant  head.  Even 
New  England  theologians  retain  and  make  frequent 
use  of  these  terms  representative  and  covenant  head, 
tliough  their  scheme  of  doctrine  does  not  require  it. 

The  Augustinian  doctrine  also  traces  guilt  to  a 
causative  force,  attributes  the  origin  of  it  not  to  the 
individual  but  to  the  race  as  embodied  in  Adam 
and  including  each  individual.  It  is  maintained  by 
the  adherents  of  this  system  that  in  no  other  way 
can  innate  sinfulness  be  made  to  appear  consistent 
with  justice  in  the  Divine  Ruler. 

Many  New  England  theologians  have  based 
responsibility  upon  the  power  of  contrary  choice. 
Their  teaching  is  that  in  any  given  circmnstances 
the  choice  might  have  been  different,  everything  but 
the  choice  remaining  unchanged.  The  doctrine  is, 
that  when  the  desires  and  inclinations  are  fixed  and 


KESPONSIBILITY.  127 

the  constitutional  preferences  established,  the  contrary 
of  that  which  is  chosen  might  be  chosen.  This 
doctrine  has  been  assailed  as  identical  with  the 
Arminian  scheme  of  self-determination.  It  has  been 
defended,  in  reply  to  this  charge,  by  teaching  that 
the  power  to  the  contrary  is  not  such  as  to  interfere 
with  the  certainty  that  the  choice  will  be  as  the 
greatest  apparent  good.  And  this  is  now  the  widely 
accepted  view  of  New  England  men, — certainty  with 
power  to  the  contrary.  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor  w^as  a 
leader  in  the  use  of  this  phrase:  "Certainty  with 
power  to  the  contrary.'^  He  used  to  say  a  man  can 
do  differently  if  he  will,  and  if  he  will  not,  but  held 
that  motives  fixed  the  choice  with  certainty.  But 
this  moral  certainty  carries  the  doctrine  back  to  that 
of  Edwards  and  makes  the  scheme  simply  that  of 
determinism.  It  does  not  find  any  place  for  what 
Whitby  called  freedom  from  necessity.  But  these 
illustrations  are  referred  to  simply  to  show  that  the 
mind  does  not  rest  satisfied  with  the  assertion  that 
the  moral  quality  of  an  act  is  in  the  nature  of  the 
act  itself. 

mFLUENCE  OF  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

As  the  distinction  between  natural  and  moral 
ability  and  inability  was  made  serviceable  by  certain 
theologians  in  England,  and  as  it  was  suggested  to 
them  by  American  authors,  this  may  be  the  proper 
place  to  notice  the  influence  of  New  England  theology 
in  the  mother  country.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
writings  of  Edwards  early  attracted  attention  in 
Scotland,  and  that  he  had  several  correspondents  and 
many  warm  friends  there;    but  the   reference  here  is 


128  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

not  to  friendship,  it  is  rather  to  the  influence  he 
exerted  through  the  special  doctrines  which  he  taught. 
As  a  thinker  he  called  forth  the  highest  admiration 
of  men  who  were  not  specially  interested  in  Ameri- 
can aifairs.  Sir  James  Mackintosh  speaks  of  "his 
power  of  subtile  argument,  perhaps  unmatched,  cer- 
tainly unsurpassed,  among  men."  Robert  Hall,  who 
strenuously  opposed  his  view  of  virtue,  and  made 
sport  of  his  distinction  between  natural  and  moral 
necessity,  read  him  with  delight  at  nine  years  of  age, 
and  for  sixty  years  resorted  to  him  as  a  favorite 
author.  He  makes  it  one  of  the  merits  of  Dr.  John 
Ryland  that  he  was  familiar  with  "that  prodigy  of 
metaphysical  acumen,  the  celebrated  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards.'' Dr.  Chalmers,  who  had  more  sympathy 
with  his  sentiments  than  the  authors  just  noticed,  says : 

"  On  the  ai^ena  of  metaphysics  he  stood  the  high- 
est of  all  his  cotemporaries,  and  that,  too,  at  a  time, 
when  Hume  was  aiming  his  deadliest  thrusts  at  the 
foundations  of  morality,  and  had  thrown  over  the 
infidel  cause  the  Avhole  edat  of  his  reputation.  The 
American  divine  affords,  perhaps,  the  most  wondrous 
example,  in  modern  times  of  one  who  stood  richly 
gifted,  both  in  natural  and  spiritual  discernment."  * 

The  effect  of  Edwards'  speculations  did  not  ter- 
minate in  mere  admiration,  there  were  some  able 
men  whose  opinions  and  teachings  were  affected  by 
them.  At  the  time  when,  to  adopt  the  language  of 
the  younger  Edwards,  "The  Calvinists  themselves 
began  to  be  ashamed  of  their  own  cause,  and  to  give 
it  up,  so  far  at  least  as  relates  to  liberty  and  neces- 

1.    Christian  and  Civic  Economy,  I,  p.  318. 


RESPONSIBILITY.  129 

sity/^  there  arose  in  England  an  inquiry  which  was 
known  at  the  time  as  the  Modern  Question ,  viz. : 
Whether  it  be  the  duty  of  all  men  to  whom  the  gos- 
pel is  published,  to  repent  and  believe  in  Christ. 
It  was  extensively  believed  that  Calvinists  could  not 
answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative,  there  were 
some  very  able  preachers  among  the  Baptists  who 
were  not  willing  to  answer  it  in  the  negative.  We 
are  told  that  Andrew  Fuller,  in  1776,  became  ac- 
quainted with  Mr.  Sutcliffe,  of  Olney,  and  Mr.  John 
Ryland,  Jr.,  of  Northampton,  who  partly  by  reflec- 
tion and  partly  by  reading  Edwards,  Bellamy  and 
Brainard,  had  begun  to  doubt  the  system  of  false 
Calvinism,  or  rather  to  be  decided  against  it.  Fuller 
said,  however,  that  he  found  good  people  both  among 
the  Arminians  and  Hyper-Calvinists.  ^ 

Kev.  John  Kyland,  D.D.,  in  his  life  of  Fuller, 
says  : 

"  Closely  studying  Edwards  on  the  Will,  and 
entering  into  the  distinction  between  natural  and 
moral  inability,  removed  the  difficulties  which  had 
once  embarassed  my  mind.  In  1776  I  borrowed  of 
Mr.  Newton,  of  Olney,  two  sermons  on  this  subject 
by  Mr.  Smalley,  which  Brother  Sutcliffe  afterwards 
reprinted  from  the  copy  which  I  transcribed.  I 
well  remember  lending  them  to  Mr.  Hall,  of  Arnsby, 
(father  of  the  famous  Robert  Hall)  to  Avhom  I  i^e- 
marked  that  I  was  ready  to  suspect  that  this  distinc- 
tion, well  considered,  would  lead  us  to  see  that  the 
affirmative  side  of  the  Modern  Question  was  fully 
consistent  wdth  the  strictest  Calvinism."  ^ 

1.    See  Life  of  Andrew  Fuller,  by  his  Grandson. 
2.    Memoir  of  Fuller,  p.  6,  n. 


130  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

He  adds  that  Hall  doubted,  but  after  reading  the 
sermons  assented  to  his  remark.  Dr.  Ryland  says 
again  in  the  same  work  : 

"I  question  much  if  any  thinking  man  can  steer 
clear  of  false  Calvinism  on  the  one  hand  and  real 
Arminianism  on  the  other  without  entering  into  the 
distinction  between  natural  and  moral  inability,  as  it 
is  commonly  termed."  ^ 

He  here  refers  to  Dr.  Twisse  and  John  Howe  as 
admitting  the  importance  of  the  distinction.  Robert 
Hall  supposed  that  Edwards  derived  the  distinction 
from  Owen.  These  theologians,  Fuller  and  Ryland, 
with  some  of  their  associates,  sympathized  with  their 
American  friends  upon  some  other  doctrines,  as 
original  sin  and  imputation.  After  a  time  their 
position  provoked  discussion  with  some  of  the  more 
strict  Calvinists  of  their  own  denomination ;  especially 
their  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  the  New  England 
view  of  which  they  had  adopted,  was  considered  a 
dangerous  innovation. 

IV. 

VIRTUE. 

It  might  be  said  to  have  been  the  mission  of  New 
England  Theology  to  give  an  ethical  form  to  Cal- 
vinism. It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  it  should 
teach  a  clear  and  distinct  doctrine  of  virtue.  This 
topic,  of  necessity  central  in  any  speculation  concern- 
ing morals,  received  special  attention  from  the  fol- 

1.   Ibid.,  p.  26. 


VIKTUE.  131 

lowers  of  Edwards.  His  treatise  on  that  subject  has 
been  spoken  of.  His  successors  have  discussed  the 
matter  more  fully  than  he  did,  so  that  it  has  con- 
tinued to  be  a  theme  of  marked  interest  to  the 
present  time.  Dr.  Hopkins,  the  Xew  Haven  school, 
and  the  Oberlin  school,  have  each  made  it  prominent. 
But  wliile  all  parties  have  retained  certain  words  and 
phrases,  and  adopted  the  same  general  definition,  there 
has  been,  by  no  means,  entire  agreement  in  their 
teachings. 

At  first  thought  it  would  be  supposed  that,  of  all 
subjects,  virtue  is  the  one  on  which  there  could  be  no 
diiFerence  of  opinion.  The  good  man  is  known  and 
recognized  everywhere.  Goodness  is  a  quality  which 
cannot  long  be  concealed,  cannot  long  be  successfully 
counterfeited.  But  as  soon  as  we  attempt  to  analyze 
it  we  see  that  the  term  itself  is  not  easily  defined 
and  that  there  may  be  discordant  opinions  concerning 
absolute  goodness.  Do  we  mean  by  virtue  that  which 
is  always  good,  an  object  of  praise,  in  itself,  or  do  we 
mean  that  which  is  sometimes  good,  useful  on  special 
occasions?  Is  the  good  man  the  one  who  occasion- 
ally does  the  world  a  service,  or  must  he  devote  his 
life  to  the  service  of  the  world?  A  professional 
gambler  might  warn  one  of  the  danger  of  taking  a 
certain  road  in  a  journey,  a  disciple  of  him  who  went 
about  doing  good  might  spend  his  days  in  Avarning 
men  of  the  danger  of  a  life  of  sin.  Are  they  both 
to  be  considered  good  men  in  the  same  sense?  Each 
has  done  a  good  thing,  is  each  to  be  accounted  a  man 
of  virtue?  The  former  has  no  quality  that  restrains 
him  from  wrongs  of  every  kind.      The  latter  intends 


132        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

to  avoid  all  wrong-doing.  A  person  possessed  of  the 
latter  trait  is  virtuous  in  himself,  virtuous  as  a  man ; 
others  do  icorks  that  may  be  praiseworthy,  he  is 
praiseworthy  because  of  his  character.  In  searching 
for  virtue,  therefore,  we  search  for  a  quality  that 
sanctifies  all  that  it  touches,  or  that  is  in  itself  of 
absolute  worth.  The  word  virtue  is  not  in  itself 
sufficiently  definite.  Edwards  qualifies  it  again  and 
again  to  assure  us  that  he  is  treating  of  true  virtue 
or  holiness.  Hopkins  generally  uses  the  word  holi- 
ness in  preference  to  the  word  virtue.  The  New 
England  divines  have  with  great  unanimity  an- 
swered the  question ;  tvhat  is  virtue  f  with  this  as- 
sertion, virtue  consists  in  benevolence.  Equivalent 
expressions  are  sometimes  adopted,  such  as :  love  is 
the  sum  of  the  virtues,  or  love  is  the  fulfilling  of 
the  law. 

It  is  obvious,  that  this  definition  would  not  abso- 
lutely limit  the  thoughts  of  those  speculating  upon 
this  theme,  but  that  the  definition  might  be  adopted 
by  those  differing  widely  in  their  real  sentiments. 

Edwards'  view  has  already  been  noticed.  He 
made  holiness  absolute  benevolence,  love  called  forth 
immediately  by  being  simply  considered.  But  he, 
perhaps  unconsciously,  modifies  this  view,  though  he 
constantly  recurs  to  it.  He  says  that  by  being  in 
general,  he  means  intelligent  being  in  general.  This 
destroys  the  immediateness  of  the  effect  of  being  as 
such  and  renders  the  benevolence  no  longer  absolute. 
He  says  also: 

"Spiritual  beauty  (which  he  had  asserted  to  be 
virtue)  consists   wholly   in    this  (i.  e.  love   of  being 


VIRTUE.  133 

simply  considered)  and  the  various  qualities  and 
exercises  of  mind  which  proceed  from  it,  and  the  ex- 
ternal actions  which  proceed  from  these  internal  qual- 
ities and  exercises."^ 

He  attempts,  not  very  successfully,  to  bring  all 
these  under  the  category  of  benevolence,  by  showing 
that  complacency  is  evolved  from  benevolence.  What- 
ever may  be  thought  of  his  reasoning,  it  is  clear  that 
he  supplements  absolute  benevolence  in  order  to  em- 
brace all  the  virtues  under  the  single  term  benevo- 
lence. Dr.  Hopkins  is  the  one  among  the  New 
England  theologians  who  has  given  the  largest  place 
to  benevolence.  He  uses  the  expression  absolute 
benevolence  and  claims  to  agree  with  Edwards.  It 
might  better  be  said,  he  begins  where  Edwards 
leaves  off.      He  says: 

"President  Edwards,  in  his  dissertation  on  the 
nature  of  true  virtue,  has  given  the  same  account  of 
holiness  for  substance,  though  under  a  different  name, 
which  the  reader  mil  find  in  the  following  inquiry. 
All  I  can  pretend  to,  as  an  improvement  on  him,  is 
to  have  explained  some  things  more  fully  than  he 
did,  and  more  particularly  stated  the  opposition  of 
holiness  to  self-love,  and  shown  that  this  representa- 
tion of  holiness  is  agreeable  to  the  scripture ;  and  to 
have  answered  some  objections  he  has  not  mentioned, 
and  made  a  number  of  inferences.''^ 

Hopkins'  treatise  on  holiness  is  prolix,  controver- 
sial and  repetitious,  but  on  the  theme  itself  he  dwelt 
with  rapture.  He  was  not  a  writer  of  special  literary 
merit,  but  on  this  subject  his  conceptions  were  grand 

1.    Works  II,  p.  265.  2.    Ill,  p.  7. 


134  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

and  his  language  eloquent.  His  views  of  the  topic 
itself  will  be  presented  here,  reference  to  the  contro- 
versial portions  will  be  reserved  for  another  place. 
He  says: 

^^  Holiness  is  that  by  which  intelligent  beings  are 
united  together  in  the  highest,  most  perfect  and 
beautiful  union.  It  consists  in  that  harmony  of 
affection  and  union  of  heart  by  which  the  intelligent 
system  becomes  one,  so  far  as  holiness  prevails,  which 
fixes  every  being,  by  his  own  inclination  and  choice, 
in  his  proper  place,  so  as  in  the  best  manner  to  pro- 
mote the  good  of  the  whole.  There  is  no  moral 
beauty  or  happiness  among  moral  beings  without 
harmony  and  union  of  heart.  All  sin  is  opposed  to 
this;  it  sets  intelligences  in  opposition  to  eacli  other, 
and  spreads  the  most  disagreeable  and  unhappy  dis- 
cord. But  holiness  unites  them ;  it  consists  in  the 
highest  and  most  excellent  kind  of  union  in  nature." 

As  he  makes  holiness  a  force  uniting  human  be- 
ings in  one  whole,  so  he  makes  it,  as  love,  a  vital 
force.  The  following  has  an  Edwardean  metaphysi- 
cal tone : 

"  The  new  creature  produced  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
in  regeneration,  by  which  men  are  created  in  Christ 
Jesus  unto  good  works,  is  that  in  which  all  Chris- 
tian holiness  consists.  This  is  the  moral  image  of 
God ;  the  divine  nature  communicated  or  implanted ; 
or  Christ  formed  in  the  soul.  And  this  consists  in 
a  principle  of  true  love ;  and  all  the  exercises  and 
obedience  of  a  Christian,  through  the  course  of  a 
holy  life,  are  the  exertions  and  exercises  of  this  love, 
this  new  creature.  It  is  the  same  life  and  active 
nature    by   which   the   Christian   lives,  and   acts  in  a 

1.    Ill,  p.  10. 


VIKTUE.  135 

holy  manner  on  all  occasions, — the  new  creature  living 
and  acting, — as  much  so  as  the  various  exercises  oi 
an  animal  are  the   same   life,  exerting   itself  and   act- 


mg/'  ^ 


He  made  holiness  the  sum  of  the  virtues,  sees  in 
it  all  God's  perfections  combined, — his  wisdom,  jus- 
tice, truth  and  faithfulness.  In  the  same  way  he 
finds  all  human  excellence  in  love  or  holiness. 
Commenting  on  the  words,  ^^  Every  one  that  loveth 
knoweth  God,''  he  says  that  love  is,  or  implies  all 
that  light  and  discerning  in  which  true  wisdom  con- 
sists, therefore  love  is  wisdom.  In  the  same  way 
he  argues  that  love  is  justice,  fidelity,  truthfulness. 
He  seems  to  consider  it  as  the  primal  moral  sub- 
stance in  which  all  the  excellences  of  rational  and 
responsible  beings  consist. 

Hopkins  carefully  distinguishes  the  benevolence 
on  which  he  sets  so  high  an  estimate  from  all  coun- 
terfeits. It  must  be  free  from  any  taint  of  selfish- 
ness. It  must  be  disinterested.  This  qualifying 
term  has  become  famous.  For  two  generations  or 
more,  wherever  his  theology  was  known,  disinterested 
benevolence  was  a  theme  of  ardent  discussion  with 
both  laity  and  clergy.  Hopkins  considered  that  the 
improvement  of  most  importance  which  he  made  in 
carrying  out  Edwards'  ideas,  was  in  putting  self-love 
in  its  proper  place  over  against  the  love  of  being  in 
general.  He  sets  aside  as  not  pertaining  to  the 
subject,  that  which  is  sometimes  called  self-love,  the 
instinctive  interest  which  one  takes  spontaneously  in 
the  affairs  of  the  world ;    this   feeling  he  looks  upon 

1.    I,  p.  446. 


136       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

as  merely  the  means  of  communion  between  man  and 
the  world.  He  justifies  as  not  reprehensible  but 
virtuous  the  love  one  bears  himself  as  a  part  of 
being  in  general,  one  is  under  obligation  to  love  him- 
self as  much  as,  and  no  more  than,  he  loves  any 
other  equal  fragment  of  the  universe.  But  he  points 
out  with  great  fulness  the  evil  of  that  self-love, — the 
only  real  self-love, — which  prompts  one  to  foster  his 
own  interest  separately  from  the  general  interest,  to 
set  his  own  pleasure  above  the  pleasure  of  the  com- 
mon mass.  Our  own  interests  as  individuals  must 
be  set  aside.  We  must  favor  ourselves  as  we  would 
our  neighbors,  as  a  part  of  the  whole  and  for  the 
sake  of  the  whole.  The  good  man  is  willing  to 
give  up  his  friend  for  the  advancement  of  the  com- 
mon interest,  to  encourage  him  in  entering  on  the 
life  of  a  soldier  or  a  missionary  in  heathen  lands,  if 
his  duty  seems  so  to  require,  and  what  one  should 
be  ready  to  allow  a  friend  to  do  he  must  be  ready 
himself  to  do  in  like  circumstances.  Love  must  be 
disinterested.  One  must  be  willing  to  suffer,  to 
give  up  life,  to  be  condemned  to  eternal  woe,  if  the 
good  of  the  universe  demands  it,  if  the  glory  of  God 
demands  it. 

The  view  of  holiness  which  we  have  thus  far 
noticed,  all-embracing  and  disinterested  benevolence, 
is  inspiring,  but  Hopkins  found  it  necessary  to  con- 
centrate his  thoughts  in  the  application  of  the  subject 
and  recede  somewhat  from  the  broad  generalizations 
in  which  he  expressed  his  theory.  We  have  seen 
that  Edwards,  after  making  virtue  love  of  being  in 
general,    reduced   the    range    of  love    to    intelligent 


VIKTUE.  137 

being.  Hopkins  still  more  distinctly  deals  with 
intelligent  being.  And  then  he  reqnires  an  appre- 
ciation of  the  worth  of  particular  beings.  While  he 
makes  love  of  universal  being  distinctive  of  holy 
love,  so  that  love  of  individuals  otherwise  than 
through  the  whole,  and  as  parts  of  the  whole,  would 
be  sinful,  yet  he  teaches  that  each  thing  must  be 
loved  according  to  its  worth.  God  must  be  loved 
supremely,  his  happiness,  his  glory,  made  the  chief 
object  of  pursuit,  while  angels  and  men  are  to  be 
objects  of  our  good  will,  according  to  their  substan- 
tial value.  God  is  indeed  the  sum  and  substance  of 
all  existence,  so  that  we  cannot  fix  any  proportion 
between  our  love  of  him  and  our  love  of  men,  yet  men, 
as  possessed  of  being,  are  to  be  loved,  and  loved  in 
proportion  to  the  amount  of  being  of  which  they  are 
possessed,  the  great  and  good  more  than  the  weak 
and  vile.  Hopkins  finds  himself  compelled  to  make 
still  further  modifications  of  his  love  of  being  in  gen- 
eral, in  order  to  make  his  scheme  a  practical  one.  He 
knows  that  a  man  must  take  care  of  his  own,  spe- 
cially those  of  his  own  household.  Accordingly  he 
lays  down  these  principles: 

"This  disinterested  benevolence  regards  the  inter- 
est and  happiness  of  those  who  are  nearest,  and 
most  in  sight,  more  strongly  and  tenderly  than  those 
who  are  farther  off,  and  more  out  of  sight.'^  ^ 

Of  the  good  man  he  says : 

"His  benevolence  will  be  more  particularly,  and 
in  a   stronger   degree,   exercised   towards  those  who 

1.    I,  p.  385. 


138  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

are  most  in    his   view,     *  *     *     and  those  who  are 

more    especially  under   his  care,  and  to   whom   he  is 

under  advantage,  and  has  more    opportunity    to    do 
good."  1 

Again  he  modifies  the  application  of  benevolence 
in  this  way  : 

^^This  love,  in  which  a  man  regards  himself  as 
part  of  the  whole,  and  his  interest  and  happiness  for 
the  same  reason  he  regards  that  of  his  neighbor,  may 
be  exercised  with  greater  strength  and  more  sensibly 
with  respect  to  his  own  interest  and  welfare  than 
towards  tliat  of  his  neighbor,  who  is  as  worthy  of 
regard  as  himself,  and  that  for  these  two  reasons :  he 
has  a  more  clear,  full  and  constant  view  of  himself 
and  his  interest  than  he  can  have  for  his  neighbor's, 
*  *  *  and  every  person  has  a  more  particular  and 
immediate  care  of  himself  committed  to  him  by  God 
than  of  his  neighbor."  ^ 

Hopkins'  treatise  upon  holiness  is  philosophical 
rather  than  scriptural,  yet  he  had  the  utmost  confi- 
dence that  his  views  were  in  harmony  with  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible.  His  argument  on  this  point  is 
brief  and  clear.  He  assumes  that,  "  the  law  of  God 
is  the  standard  of  all  moral  rectitude  and  holiness." 
This  is  his  starting  point,  a  principle  not  to  be  ques- 
tioned.     He  proceeds : 

^^Our  divine  Teacher  has,  in  his  great  wisdom  and 
goodness,  given  us  a  summary  of  the  divine  law  in 
the  following  words :  ^  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  Avith  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  mind.'     This  is  the  first  ancl  great  com- 

1.    I,  p.  377.  2.     Ill,  p.  24. 


VIKTUE.  139 

mandment.  And  the  second  is  like  unto  it.  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two 
commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets : 
Here  all  obedience  to  the  law  is  reduced  to  one  thing, 
— love.  This  is  the  whole  that  is  required;  there- 
fore, this  is  the  whole  of  true  holiness ;  it  consists  in 
this  love  and  in  nothing  else."^ 

It  would  be  easy  to  criticise  Hopkins'  arguments 
concerning  holiness,  but  two  or  three  suggestions  are 
all  that  is  required  in  a  historical  treatise.  This 
scriptural  argument  is  quite  too  summary  and  assum- 
ing. The  words  of  our  Lord  are  not  to  be  treated 
as  if  they  were  used  with  scientific  accuracy.  They 
should  be  accepted  with  the  meaning  that  his  hearers 
would  naturally  attribute  to  them.  He  said,  (Luke 
14:26: 

"  If  any  man  come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father 
and  mother,  and  wife  and  children,  and  brethren  and 
sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my 
disciple.'^ 

Hatred  is  here  made  as  prominent  as  love  in  the 
previous  passage.  Neither  text  can  be  made  the 
basis  of  a  theory  of  morals.  Again  if  the  law  is 
the  standard  of  righteousness,  love  is  virtuous  be- 
cause it  is  obedience,  not  because  it  is  love.  Yet 
again,  his  subtle  discriminations  which  justify  a  man 
in  caring  for  himself  rather  than  his  neighbor  show 
that  virtue  is  not  in  simple,  absolute  benevolence,  but 
in  regulated,  adjusted  benevolence.  Once  more,  he 
finds  himself  perplexed  with  those  virtuous  emotions 

1.    Ill,  p.  13. 


140  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

that  fall  under  complacency.  He  follows  Edwards 
in  trying  to  show  that  complacency  is  involved  in 
benevolence,  but,  though  evidently  not  satisfied  with 
Edwards'  reasoning,  he  reaches  no  more  satisfactory 
conclusion  himself. 

The  benevolence  theory  of  virtue  is  allied  to  the 
utilitarian  theory.  Some  consider  them  really  iden- 
tical. The  late  Professor  White  of  the  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary  in  New  York,  taught  that  Edwards' 
theory  involved  the  ISTew  Haven  happiness-theory. 
Being  as  such  is  not  readily  made  an  object  of  dis- 
interested affection.  Hegel  considered  simple  being 
equivalent  to  nothing.  Whatever  we  may  think 
of  being  in  general,  actual  attachment  by  love  or 
admiration  or  any  other  emotion  must  take  place 
through  some  quality  in  the  being  which  renders  it 
attractive.  And  simple  benevolence  must  be  about 
as  empty  as  simple  being.  Benevolence  that  is  aim- 
less seems  hardly  worthy  of  the  name.  A  bare  well- 
wishing  without  an  object  to  be  benefited  or  a  good 
to  be  bestowed  is,  at  best,  a  feeble  expression  of 
human  sentiment.  Neither  Edwards  nor  Hopkins 
could  rest  in  so  attenuated  a  theory.  They  did  not 
propose  to  throw  away  their  good-will,  but  would 
have  it  directed  to  intelligent  being,  to  that  capable 
of  appreciating  it  and  responding  to  it.  Hence  the 
discriminations  as  to  the  demands  upon  our  benevo- 
lence which  have  been  referred  to.  Nearness  to 
ourselves  and  advantage  to  confer  benefit  are  to  be 
regarded;  one's  family  and  his  own  person  are  com- 
mitted to  his  keeping  and  must  be  more  an  object 
of  solicitude  and  affection   than   things   distant   and 


VIRTUE.  141 

unknown.  As  soon  as  these  discriminations  are  ap- 
plied, we  ask  after  the  condition  and  need  of  the 
object  to  which  our  benevolence  is  directed.  Let  the 
object  be  a  sentient  non-rational  creature,  our  duty 
is  to  contribute  to  the  creature's  comfort  and  con- 
tentment, perhaps  its  happiness.  Let  the  object  be 
a  rational,  moral  being,  benevolence  requires  us  to 
promote  the  being's  good,  both  physical  and  spiritual 
The  term  which  is  used  to  express  well-being,  the 
state  valued  and  longed  for,  is  happiness.  We  are 
not  to  limit  the  term  to  physical  enjoyments,  as  is 
too  often  done,  but  should  extend  it  to  all  that  in- 
creases the  value  of  man's  estate  for  body  or  soul, 
for  time  or  eternity.  True  benevolence  is  wishing 
to  sentient  being  the  highest  happiness  it  is  capable 
of  receiving,  and  includes  the  effort  to  confer  on 
those  under  our  care,  or  within  our  reach,  the  special 
good  which  they  most  need.  It  is  natural  then  to 
define  benevolence  as  the  desire  to  promote  happi- 
ness ;  happiness  being  adopted  as  the  term  embracing 
whatever  is  good, — good  for  sentient  being. 

But  this  is  utilitarianism,  and  if  we  make  utility 
the  governing  principle  then  Ave  have  the  utilitarian 
scheme  of  virtue.  This  is  a  simple  scheme  and  is 
widely  accepted.  Happiness  it  is  said  is  the  ultimate 
good;  and  the  only  thing  good  in  itself;  whatever 
else  is  good,  is  good  for  the  simple  reason  that  it 
promotes  happiness.  Virtue  is  good  simply  because 
it  promotes  happiness;  benevolence  is  virtue  because 
it  is  our  way,  our  only  way,  of  promoting  happiness. 
But  there  are  many  kinds  and  degrees  of  happiness ; 
is  there  virtue  in  promoting  them,  one  and  all?    Tlie 


142  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

happiness  of  a  sensual  life  interferes  with  the  happiness 
of  an  elevated  moral  life ;  interferes  with  the  bless- 
edness of  the  eternal  life.  How  are  we  to  adjust 
our  efforts  in  promoting  happiness?  The  reply  is, 
we  must  not  sacrifice  the  less  to  the  greater.  In 
other  w^ords  true  benevolence  requires  us  to  promote 
the  highest  happiness,  making  other  kinds  of  it 
subordinate.  It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  the  hap- 
piness of  one  often  interferes  with  that  of  another ; 
whose  happiness  shall  be  secured?  whose  sacrificed? 
The  reply  is,  we  must  seek  the  good  of  the  whole. 
Each  one  must  forego  personal  gratifications  so  far 
as  is  necessary  for  the  general  welfare.  And  each 
will  find  his  highest  happiness  in  denying  self  for 
the  good  of  all.  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor,  a  strong  advo- 
cate of  the  happiness  theory  of  morals  says  : 

"  From  the  very  constitution  of  his  nature,  the  per- 
fection of  man  in  character,  as  well  as  happiness,  will 
forever  be  in  promoting  the  happiness  of  others.''  ^ 

It  may  be  said  we  cannot  continually  look  to  the 
highest  happiness  of  the  universe  ;  cannot  judge  of 
and  aim  at  a  general  good  in  all  the  common  occu- 
pations of  life,  but  it  may  be  replied  that  we  can 
have  as  a  ruling  purpose  the  promotion  of  the  gen- 
eral good — the  present  and  eternal  interests,  both  of 
ourselves  and  others.  We  can  make  practical  the 
life  of  virtue  as  set  forth  in  a  definition  attributed 
to  Dr.  Taylor:  "Virtue  is  making  the  highest  hap- 
piness of  the  universe  the  ultimate  object  of  pursuit.'' 
We  may  labor  for  the  specific  advantage  of  others  or 

1.    Christian  Spectator.  1830.  p.  161. 


VIKTUE.  143 

for  the  furtherance  of  our  own  interest  in  the  belief 
that  we  thus  serve  our  race  and  our  God.  And  we 
may  believe  that  we  promote  the  good  of  humanity 
in  general  as  we  promote  our  own,  by  an  increase 
of  happiness. 

This  scheme  of  utility  has  been  accepted  by  many 
prominent  thinkers,  and  may  be  said  to  be  one 
phase  of  New  England  theology.      Dr.  Dwight  says : 

"Virtue  is  founded  in  utility.  >K  ^j^  :^  Good 
is  of  two  kinds  only,  happiness  and  the  cause  of  hap- 
piness, or  the  means  of  happiness.^^  Virtue  is  a 
good  because  it  comes  under  the  last  head.  "The 
excellence  of  virtue,  therefore,  consists  wholly  in 
this;  that  it  is  the  cause  of  good,  that  is,  of  happi- 
ness, the  ultimate  good;  the  only  thing  for  which 
virtue  is  valuable.''^ 

Dr.  Asa  Burton  and  the  younger  Edwards  adopted 
this  view  of  virtue.  Whether  the  entire  Edwardean 
scheme  as  developed  by  Hopkins,  Smalley,  Bellamy 
and  others,  may  be  rigidly  proved  to  be  identical 
with  this  utilitarian  scheme,  is  a  question  which  has 
not  yet  been  fully  answered.  There  are  some  who 
by  no  means  grant  it.  President  Edwards  denies 
that  we  apprehend  virtue  simply  through  its 
consequences.      He  says: 

"Therefore,  if  this  be  all  that  is  meant  by  them 
who  affirm  that  virtue  is  founded  in  sentiment,  and 
not  in  reason,  that  they  who  see  the  beauty  there  ^  is 
in  true  virtue,  do  not  perceive  it  by  argumentation 
or  its  connections  and  consequences,  but  by  the  frame 
of  their  own  minds,  or  a  certain  spiritual  sense  given 

1.    D wight's  Theology,  Sermon,  99. 


144       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

them  of  God,  whereby  they  immediately  perceive 
pleasure  in  the  presence  of  the  idea  of  true  virtue  in 
their  minds,  or  are  directly  gratified  in  the  view  or 
contemplation  of  this  object,  this  is  certainly  true."^ 

Some  would  deny  that  benevolence — wishing  hap- 
piness to  a  sentient  being  —  could  be  contemplated 
v/ithout  regard  to  consequences.  Edwards  is  claimed, 
therefore,  by  both  parties,  the  utilitarians  and  their 
opponents. 

The  utilitarian  scheme  has  been  vigorously  antag- 
onized at  Andover.  It  has  been  there  claimed  that 
*  When  Edwards  said  that  virtue  consisted  in  benevo- 
lence, he  meant  that  benevolence  was  that  which 
contained  virtue,  and  that  was  all  he  meant.'  This 
exprsssion  compared  with  that  cited  from  President 
Dwight,  of  New  Haven,  brings  out  clearly  the  contrast 
on  this  point  between  the  two  schools.  At  New 
Haven  it  was  held,  that  benevolence  is  virtue  because 
it  is  the  means  of  promoting  happiness ; — the  only  means 
by  which  a  responsible  being  can  of  purpose  promote  the 
happiness  of  the  universe.  At  Andover  it  was  held 
that  there  is  an  element  in  benevolence  which  we 
call  virtue  or  righteousness.  We  recognize  it  by  in- 
tuition. Every  man  sees  that  benevolence  has  the 
quality  of  righteousness.  An  adherent  of  the  former 
school  said  that  its  theologians  were  not  sharp-eyed 
enough  to  see  this  quality  wrapped  up  in  benevolence. 
They  could  only  see  that  benevolence  promoted  hap- 
piness and  was  therefore  virtuous.  The  benevolence 
here  in  view  is  true  benevolence;  —  the  choice  of  the 
highest  happiness  of  the  universe  as  an  ultimate  object 

1.    II,  p.  301. 


VIKTUE.  145 

of  pursuit.  Both  schools  accept  this  as  virtue  and 
true  benevolence.  The  Andover  view  is  that  there 
are  U\o  divisions  of  virtue,  the  love  of  benevolence 
and  the  love  of  complacency ;  the  former  is  good  Avill 
towards  being  as  capable  of  happiness,  or  holiness,  or 
both,  the  latter  love  of  beings  as  actually  holy.  The 
virtue  ,in  complacency  is  of  higher  dignity  than  that 
in  benevolence,  but  the  love  of  benevolence  is  the  root 
of  all  virtues  other  than  itself.  This  Andover  view 
has  been  designated  as  rightarian,  though  the  term  is 
not  adopted  into  philosophical  language.  It  makes 
right  an  object  of  direct  intuition,  makes  doing  right 
virtue,  finds  all  virtue  in  love,  and  the  love  of  benev- 
olence at  least  the  condition  of  all  virtue.  The  Ober- 
lin  theologians  have  pressed  benevolence  into  their 
service  more  largely  than  their  predecessors  in  New 
England.  They  affiliate  with  the  New  Haven  rather 
than  the  Andover  view.  President  Finney  rejects 
wliat  he  calls  the  rightarian  scheme  and  applies  to  it 
the  epithets  cold,  loveless,  repulsive,  etc.  He  exhibits 
a  decided  aversion  to  it  because  of  its  moral  tenden- 
cies. President  Fairchild,  who,  as  well  as  President 
Finney,  has  published  a  system  of  theology,  has  given 
the  simplest  and  clearest  statement  of  this  doctrine. 
He  makes  benevolence  the  sum  of  virtue,  not  that 
which  contains  virtue  as  an  element  or  a  quality. 
He  does  not,  however,  make  benevolence  a  good 
because  of  its  utility,  but  because  of  what  it  is  in 
itself.  Still  he  seems  to  make  benevolence  identical 
wdth  the  design  to  be  useful  or  helpful.  He  makes 
it  a  disposition  of  the  soul.  The  benevolent  dispo- 
sition is  righteousness  or  holiness.      This  is  with  him 


146  ^"EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

an  absolute  principle.  If  one  were  not  in  a  position 
to  do  any  good  work,  or  saw  no  good  to  be  done,  if 
only  he  had  the  dis^DOsition  to  help  when  occasion 
should  arise,  he  would  be  a  holy  man.      He  says : 

"Benevolence  is  the  only  eternal,  unchangeable,  uni- 
versal principle  of  action,  'Benevolence,  or  regard 
for  Avell-being,  which  is  a  state  of  will,  a  voluntary 
choice,  is  always  right,  irrespective  of  any  conditions. 
No  supposition  can  make  it  wron^.  It  is  right  in 
the  absolute  sense;  known  to  be  right  from  its  own 
nature."  ^ 

The  extreme  application  of  the  duty  of  disinterested 
benevolence  is  to  be  found  in  a  posthumous  work  of 
Dr.  Hopkins.  It  equals  anything  of  Carlyle  or  Mill 
in  boldly  facing  the  divine  judgment.  He  wrote  a 
treatise  on  entire  submission  to  the  will  of  God  in 
the  form  of  a  dialogue  between  a  Calvinist  and  a 
Semi-Calvinist,  that  is,  between  a  Hopkinsian  and  a 
Moderate  Calvinist.  He  teaches  that  every  person 
should  be  w-illing  to  be  damned  for  the  glory  of  God. 
The  dialogue  w^as  not  published  till  two  years  after 
his  death,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  gave 
special  prominence  to  the  most  striking  expressions 
contained  in  it,  yet  he  could  not  have  written  the 
dialogue  had  he  not  believed  that  these  expressions 
set  forth  important  truths.  This  work  called  forth 
much  opposition  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other 
many  explanations  intended  to  render  its  teachings 
less  oifensive.  In  Wlielpley's  Triangle  it  is  denied 
again  and  again  that  Hopkinsians  teach  that  one  must 
be  willing  to  be  dammed,  but  the  dialogue  is  too  ex- 

1.    Theology,  pp.  114,  115. 


VIRTUE.  147 

plicit  to  permit  extending  the  denial  to  Hopkins  him- 
self. Indeed  his  view  of  holiness  leads  logically  to 
the  doctrine  here  maintained. 

Again,  it  has  been  maintained  that  the  doctrine 
is  not  peculiar  to  Hopkins,  but  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  any  others,  not  his  theological  pupils,  have 
entertained  precisely  his  views.  Multitudes  of  New 
England  preachers  have  taught  entire  submission  to 
the  government  of  God,  but  they  had  in  mind  an 
acceptance  of  God's  judgment  as  to  actual  character 
and  moral  desert,  not  a  supralapsarian  doom  to  sin 
and  hell.  Hopkins  had  no  reference  to  desert  but 
taught  absolute  disinterestedness.  Some  early  Kew 
England  divines,  as  Hooker  and  Shepard,  inculcated 
a  willing  acceptance  of  divine  condemnation,  but 
would  have  it  accepted  because  it  w^as  deserved  and 
because  this  acceptance  would  lead  to  reconciliation 
with  God  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  Hopkins 
taught  that  one  should  not  only  be  willing  to  be 
damned  if  he  deserved  it,  but  should  also  be  willing 
to  deserve  it,  if  the  glory  of  God  so  required.  He 
taught  that  the  glory  of  God  demands  the  eternal 
condemnation  of  some  sinners,  else  none  would  be 
condemned.  Xo  one  knows  that  he  is  not  the  per- 
son to  whom  such  a  doom  is  appointed,  and  to 
whomever  it  is  appointed,  he  should  accept  it  cheer- 
fully as  his  way  of  glorifying  God.  Any  person 
should  be  mlling  that  his  friend  should  be  damned, 
his  neighbor  or  himself,  if  it  is  for  the  highest  good. 
Nothing  short  of  such  w^illingness  is  true  devotion  to 
God  or  the  exercise  of  the  true  Christian  spirit.  No 
one  can  maintain   his  Christian  standing  except  by 


148        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

such  a  devotion  of  self.  If  it  had  been  proclaimed 
to  the  angels  before  any  of  them  fell,  that  some 
must,  for  the  glory  of  God,  fall  away  and  become 
objects  of  wrath,  each  one  should  have  said,  "  Here 
am  I,  let  God  glorify  himself  in  me.''  Those  who 
maintained  their  integrity  did  it  by  being  thus  will- 
ing to  fall;  those  who  apostatized  did  it  by  being 
unwilling  to  enter  on  a  life  of  sin  and  misery.  At 
all  times,  through  all  the  realms  of  moral  beings, 
the  true  children  of  God  maintain  their  position  only 
by  their  readiness  to  renounce  it  and  accept  the 
opposite  when  the  glory  of  God  requires  it.  In  all 
the  universe  every  being  and  every  event  has  its 
place  as  the  greatest  good  of  the  whole  demands, 
and  every  person  is  required  to  acquiesce  in  the 
ordering  of  the  affairs  of  the  world.  Every  angel 
should  be  ready  to  change  place  with  any  devil, 
every  saint  with  any  sinner,  if  God's  glory  requires 
it,  and  only  by  steadily  maintaining  this  attitude  of 
mind  can  any  moral  being  continue  in  a  holy  life. 
In  the  dialogue  Calvinist  says  : 

"  The  doctrine  Avhich  I  have  endeavored  to  ex- 
plain and  vindicate  tends  to  the  advantage  of  Chris- 
tians many  ways.  *  *  *  It  is  suited  to  enlarge 
the  mind  of  the  Christian,  and  to  extend  his  ideas 
and  thoughts  to  objects  which  are  great  and  immense, 
and  wake  up  the  feelings  and  exercises  of  disinter- 
ested benevolence,  of  supreme  love  to  God  and  regard 
to  the  general  good.  *  *  *  This  will  prepare  him 
to  acquiesce  in  the  eternal  destruction  of  those  who 
perisli,  and  even  to  rejoice  in  it,  as  necessary  for  the 
glory  of  God,  and  the  greatest  good  of  the  whole, 
in    the    exercise    of    that    disinterested    benevolence 


JUSTIFICATION.  149 

which  makes  him  to  be  willing  to  be  one  of  that 
sinful,  wretched  number,  were  this  necessary  to 
answer  these  ends/'  ^ 


JUSTIFICATION?^. 

This  doctrine,  as  is  well  known,  has  been  con- 
sidered, since  the  Reformation,  one  of  utmost  import- 
ance. Dr.  John  Owen  believed  that  a  failure  to 
maintain  it  in  its  integrity  would  lead  either  to 
Popery  or  Atheism,  or  something  akin  to  one  of 
these.  The  particular  form  it  would  take  in  any 
scheme  of  theology  might  be  inferred,  with  a  good 
degree  of  certainty,  from  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
adopted,  but  we  may  notice  it  briefly,  by  itself,  as 
held  in  Kew  England. 

The  strictly  Calvinistic  doctrine  maintains  that 
justification  is  pronouncing  just  the  person  who  be- 
lieves in  Christ.  God  as  judge  acquits  the  sinner 
as  guiltless  before  the  law.  The  procedure  is  foren- 
sic ;  the  acquittal  judicial.  The  character  of  the 
person  acquitted  is  not  affected  by  the  process,  but 
simply  his  relation  to  the  law;  he  was  accused  of 
transgression,  but  the  accusation  is  denied  to  be 
valid.  The  ground  of  justification  is  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ.  He  by  his  sufferings  and  death, — his  passive 
obedience,  atoned  for  the  sins  of  men ;  by  his  active 
obedience  he  earned  the  reward  promised  to  those 
who  keep  the  law.  Inasmuch  as  his  obedient  life 
1.  ni,  p.  156, 


150        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

and  sacrificial  death  are  of  infinite  inherent  merit 
they  are  sufficient  to  procure  the  salvation  of  all  who 
can  avail  themselves  of  that  merit.  If  by  any  means 
men  can  be  made  one  with  Christ,  so  that  he  and 
they  become  in  a  just  and  proper  sense  one  person,  they 
may  receive  the  benefit  of  his  atoning  work.  There 
is  no  objection,  under  such  conditions,  to  imputing 
to  them  both  his  passive  and  active  obedience.  Such 
a  union  between  Christ  and  men  is  effected  by  faith, 
therefore  those  who  believe  are  justified,  pronounced 
just,  at  the  divine  tribunal.  Faith  in  this  relation 
is  not  a  meritorious  work,  but  may  be  compared  to 
the  atmosphere  which  puts  the  hearing  ear  in  com- 
munication with  a  vibrating  body,  it  brings  Christ 
and  men  into  communion.  The  union  is  so  com- 
plete and  vital  that  the  believer  is  the  actual  possessor 
of  what  his  Redeemer  has  acquired,  so  that  his  debt 
of  sin  is  paid  rather  than  remitted ;  he  is  acquitted 
rather  than  pardoned. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  distinctly  defined  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  creed,  and  in  setting  forth  the  great 
truth,  that  salvation  is  not  by  works,  is  the  basis  of 
Protestantism,  but  it  may  be  questioned  whether  its 
bold  positions  are  not  too  rigidly  theoretical,  and 
whether  experience  may  not  properly  modify  some  of 
its  statements.  The  idea  of  pardon,  for  instance,  is 
too  intimately  associated  with  the  scriptures  and  with 
Christian  sentiment,  to  be  dropped  from  our  theology. 
Indeed  very  few  have  so  held  to  the  believer's  claim 
to  Christ's  merit  as  not  to  associate  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  immediately  with  the  application  of  his  merit. 
Dr.  Woods,  says : 


JUSTIFICATION.  151 

"Now,  what  is  forgiveness  but  a  remission  of  the 
penalty,  or  a  removal  of  the  evils  involved  in  the 
penalty?  >K  >i<  *  And  here  we  shall  see  at  once, 
that  justification  implies  complete  forgiveness.  So  it 
is  represented  in  Romans  6.  ^k  ^h  *  ^  Believers 
are  justified  not  by  their  own  works,  but  on  the  ground 
of  what  Christ  has  done  for  them/'  ^ 

Again  there  are  those  who  think  that  the  divine 
attributes  do  not,  each,  separately  and  independently 
affect  the  divine  will.  It  is  believed  that  justice 
does  not  always  lead  to  the  result  that  would  be 
reached  if  there  were  no  such  attribute  as  benevo- 
lence, and  that  benevolence  is  not  always  exercised 
without  regard  to  justice.  But  the  strict  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  justification,  which  makes  it  simply  a 
judicial  act,  maintains  that  distributive  justice  is  lit- 
erally satisfied  by  the  atonement  of  Christ.  Prof. 
A.  A.  Hodge  says  : 

"  Christ  did  in  strict  rigor  of  justice  satisfy  vica- 
riously for  us  the  demands  of  the  law,  both  the 
obedience  demanded  and  the  penalty  denounced. 
His  satisfaction  is  the  ground  of  our  justification.'^  ^ 

A  gradual  modification  of  views  concerning  this 
doctrine  may  be  observed  if  we  recall  the  positions 
taken  by  some  of  the  leading  New  England  theolo- 
gians. Edwards  preached  on  this  subject — justifi- 
cation— in  the  course  of  the  revival  in  his  parish  in 
1734-35.  The  sermons  were  prepared  for  the  pur- 
pose of  refuting  the  errors  of  the  day,  and  were 
published.       They  excited    serious  opposition  before 

1.    Works,  III,  pp.  167,  168.  2.    Outlines  of  Theology,  p.  507. 


152        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

their  publication,  and  must  have  been  intended  as  a 
careful  statement  of  his  view.  ^  He  maintains  the 
doctrine  in  its  strictest  and  fullest  form. 

^^A  person  is  said  to  be  justified,  when  he  is 
approved  of  God  as  free  from  the  guilt  of  sin  and 
its  deserved  punishment;  and  as  having  that  right- 
eousness belonging  to  him  that  entitles  to  the  reward 
of  life.''  2 

The  doctrine  of  imputation  he  states  thus : 

^^  Christ's  perfect  obedience  shall  be  reckoned  to 
our  account,  so  that  we  shall  have  the  benefit  of  it, 
as  though  we  had  performed  it  ourselves,  and  so  we 
suppose  that  a  title  to  eternal  life  is  given  us  as 
the  reward  of  this  righteousness."  ^ 
.  .  .  ''  It  is  absolutely  necessary,  that  in  order  to  a 
sinner's  being  justified,  the  righteousness  of  some 
other  should  be  reckoned  to  his  account ;  for  it  is 
declared  that  the  person  justified  is  looked  upon  as 
(in  himself)  ungodly  ;  but  God  neither  will  nor  can 
justify  a  person  without  a  righteousness  ;  for  justifi- 
cation is  manifestly  a  forensic  term,  as  the  word  is 
used  in  Scripture,  and  the  thing  a  judicial  thing, 
or  the  act  of  a  judge."  ^ 

The  ground  of  imputation  is  union  with  Christ. 

"  This  matter  may  be  better  understood  if  we 
consider  that  Christ  and  the  whole  church  of  saints 
are,  as  it  were,  one  body,  of  which  he  is  the  Head, 
and  they  are  members,  of  different  place  and  capacity ; 
now  the  whole  body,  head  and  members,  have  com- 
munion in  Christ's  righteousness  ;  they  are  all  par- 
takers of  the  benefit  of  it."  ^ 

1.    D wight's  Life  of  Edwards,  pp.  122,  434. 
2.    Works,  IV,  p.  66.      3.   Ibid.,  p.  91.     4.   Ibid.,  p.  93.     5.   Ibid.,  p.  116. 


JUSTIFICATION.  I53 

Before  the  preparation  of  this  sermon  Edwards 
had  still  more  pointedly  attributed  our  justification 
to  the  satisfaction  of  distributive  justice. 

"Salvation  is  an  absolute  debt  to  the  believer 
from  God,  so  that  he  may  in  justice  demand  and 
challenge  it,  not  upon  the  account  of  what  he 
himself  has  done,  but  upon  the  account  of  what  his 
Surety  has  done/'  ^ 

Notwithstanding  these  very  positive  affirmations 
of  the  traditional  doctrine  of  justification  there  are 
many  things  in  Edwards'  writings  which  would 
suggest  to  his  followers  modification  of  that  doctrine. 
He  gave  great  prominence  to  the  sovereignty  of  God, 
and  sovereignty  is  associated  wdth  the  idea  of  pardon 
rather  than  that  of  legal  acquittal.  Indeed  sovereignty 
and  pardon  tend  to  displace  and  exclude  the  idea 
of  a  judge  and  a  decision  based  on  law  and  evidence. 
Some  authors  have  adopted  the  expression  Sovereign 
Judge,  apparently  for  the  purpose  of  retaining  both 
ideas.  Moreover  the  meaning  of  the  word  sovereign 
is  too  narrow  to  express  Edwards'  idea  of  the  divine 
operations.  He  looked  upon  all  events  as  subsisting 
through  the  prevalence  of  the  Infinite  Will.  Though 
he  always  held  to  the  responsibility  of,  and  the  guilt 
of,  transgressors  of  the  law,  he  often  expressed  him- 
self as  looking  upon  all  things,  including  atonement 
and  justification,  as  the  result  of  a  divine  evolution. 
He  says  : 

"  As  there  is  an  infinite  fulness  of  all  possible  good 
in  God,  a  fulness  of  every  perfection,  of  all  excellency 

1.    Park's  Collection  of  Essays  on  the  Atonement,  p.  14, 


154  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

and  beauty,  and  of  infinite  happiness,  and  as  this 
fulness  is  capable  of  communication  or  emanation 
ad  extra;  so  it  seems  a  thing  amiable  and  valuable 
in  itself  that  it  should  be  communicated  or  flow 
forth,  that  this  infinite  fountain  of  good  should  send 
forth  abundant  streams,  that  this  infinite  fountain  of 
light  should,  diffusing  its  excellent  fulness,  pour 
forth  light  all  around, — and  as  this  is  excellent,  so  a 
disposition  to  this,  in  the  Divine  Being,  must  be 
looked  upon  as  a  perfection  or  an  excellent  disposi- 
tion. Such  an  emanation  of  good  is,  in  some  sense 
a  multiplication  of  it;  so  far  as  the  communication 
or  external  stream  may  be  looked  upon  as  anything 
besides  the  fountain,  so  far  it  may  be  looked  on  as 
an  increase  of  good."  ^ 

Sometimes  it  seems  difficult  to  make  the  creature, 
according  to  Edwards'  view,  subject  to  any  law  but 
the  law  of  development. 

Again,  the  position  which  he  gave  to  benevolence 
is  well  understood.  He  made  it  the  foundation  of 
virtue.  Although  he  was  too  reverential  in  his  sen- 
timents to  discuss  the  nature  of  virtue  in  the  Deity, 
he  constantly  affirms  God's  infinite  love  of  himself, 
which  would  be  love  of  being.  When  this  concep- 
tion of  the  divine  character  is  entertained,  it  is  very 
easy  to  look  upon  the  divine  benevolence  as  the  best 
and  most  easily  applied  principle  of  judgment  to 
which  we  can  resort  in  our  estimate  of  the  moral 
world.  We  may  hold  that  God  is  constantly  seek- 
ing the  highest  good  of  the  universe,  and  that  if  at 
any  time,  by  any  possibility,  benevolence  and  dis- 
tributive justice  should  fail  to  coincide,  the  latter 
must  give  place  to  the  former,  and  that  the  demands 

1.    Ibid.,  II,  p.  206. 


JUSTIFICATION.  I55 

of  public  justice  simply,  as  the  younger  Edwards 
taught,  are  to  be  regarded.  This  would  open  the 
way  to  a  remission  of  the  penalty  of  sin  without  a 
literal  legal  acquittal. 

Edwards  uses  some  expressions  which  may  lead 
to  a  modification  of  the  assertion  that  the  ungodly 
are  justified,  or  that  the  subjective  character  of  the 
justified  one  has  nothing  to  do  with  his  acquittal. 
He  ascribes  a  certain  power  to  faith  as  an  act  of  the 
believer, — the  act  that  renders  him,  not  deserving, 
but  fit,  to  be  justified. 

^^  There  is  this  benefit  purchased,  which  God  sees 
it  to  be  a  more  meet  and  suitable  thing  that  it 
should  be  assigned  to  some  than  others,  because  he 
sees  them  differently  qualified,  that  qualification 
wherein  the  meetness  of  this  benefit,  as  the  case 
stands,  consists  in  that  in  us  by  which  we  are  iusti- 
fied."i 

That  is,  it  consists  in  our  faith. 

"God  sees  it  fit,  that  in  order  to  a  union  being 
established  between  two  intelligent,  active  beings  or 
persons,  so  as  that  they  should  be  looked  upon  as 
one,  there  should  be  tne  mutual  act  of  both,  that 
each  should  receive  the  other,  as  actively  joining 
themselves  one  to  another.  God  in  requiring  this 
in  order  to  a  union  with  Christ  as  one  of  his  people, 
treats  men  as  reasonable  creatures,  capable  of  act  and 
choice ;  and  hence  sees  fit  that  they  only  that  are 
one  w^ith  Christ  by  their  own  act,  should  be  looked 
upon  as  one  in  law.^^  ^ 

The  conception  of  the  author  here  may  not  have 
been  that  faith  as  a  personal  act  precedes  justifica- 

1.    Ibid.,  IV,  p.  68.  2.    Ibid.,  IV,  p.  71. 


156  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

tion^  but  it  would  require  no  great  straining  of  the 
passage  to  make  it  teach  that  only  those  first  regen- 
erate are  justified. 

Dr.  Bellamy  has  not  left  any  formal  discussion 
of  justification,  but  his  statements  concerning  it  are 
clear.  He  refers  to  Edwards'  sermon  as  a  full  and 
accurate  treatment  of  the  topic.  He  very  distinctly 
bases  our  justification  on  union  with  Christ : 

"We  can  be  justified  by  faith,  therefore,  no  other- 
wise than,  as  faith  is  that,  on  our  part,  whereby  we 
are  united  to  Christ,  and  so  become  interested  in 
him,  in  whom  alone  God  is  well  pleased;  whose 
righteousness  and  atonement  alone  are  sufficient  to 
satisfy  for  our  guilt,  and  qualify  us  for  the  divine 
favor  and  eternal  life.  Even  as  a  woman  is  inter- 
ested in  her  husband's  estate  by  marriage,  not  as  it 
is  an  act  of  virtue  in  her  to  marry  nim,  but  as 
hereby  she  is  united  to  him,  and  becomes  one  with 
him/'  1 

His  views  seem  to  savor  of  the  old  theology  in 
that  he  distinguishes  between  Christ's  righteousness 
and  his  atoning  work,  makes  justification  include 
both  remission  of  guilt  and  a  title  to  eternal  life, 
characterizes  Christ's  obedience  as  of  infinite  moral 
excellence,^  and,  unlike  Edwards,  finds  in  faith  no 
qualification  for  God's  regard. 

"\Ye  are  justified  without  respect  to  anything  in 
us,  or  about  us,  considered  as  a  recommending  qual- 
ification, simply  by  free  grace  through  the  redemp- 
tion that  is  in  Jesus  Christ.  Our  union  with  Christ 
is  the  foundation  of  our  interest  in  him,  his  atonement 

1.    Ibid.,  II,  p.  410.  2.    Ibid.,  I,  p.  366. 


JUSTIFICATION.  157 

and  merits;    and  so  of  our  title  to   pardon,  justifica- 
tion and  eternal  life,  according  to  the  gospel."  ^ 

Dr.  Hopkins,  presents  his  view  of  justification  in 
the  language  of  the  old  theology,  but  his  thoughts 
have  the  tinge  of  the  new.      He  says : 

"Therefore  in  the  gospel,  sinners  are  represented 
as  being  saved  (i.  e.  brought  into  a  state  of  pardon 
and  acceptance  with  God,  and  to  a  title  to  eternal 
life)  by  the  blood  of  Christ;  or  by  his  merit  and 
worthiness  being  imputed  to  them  or  reckoned  to 
their  account.  Accordingly,  it  is  by  virtue  of  their 
union  to  him,  or  being  in  him,  that  they  are  delivered 
from  condemnation,  justified,  etc."  ^ 

Here  we  have  recognized,  union  with  Christ,  merit 
of  Christ,  imputation,  and  justification  as  consisting  of 
two  things,  viz.  pardon  and  a  title  to  eternal  life. 
Of  these  two  elements  of  justification,  he  says,  they 
are  never  separated,  "but  are  both  always  implied  in 
the  justification  of  a  sinner."  ^ 

In  regard  to  the  faith  on  which  justification  de- 
pends, he  says : 

It  implies  love^  otherwise  "it  would  not  in  any 
manner  or  degree  unite  the  sinner  to  Christ  so  as  to 
render  it  fit  and  proper  that  his  righteousness  should 
be  reckoned  in  his  favor,  or  be  any  reason  why  such 
a  believer  should  be  justified,  rather  than  another  who 
does  not  believe."^ 

With  Edwards,  he  sees  a  fitness  in  the  justifi- 
cation of  the  believer,  but  is  careful  to  add,  it  is  not 

1.   Ibid.,  Ill,  p.  79.     3.    Ill,  p.  245.     3.    Vo\d.,  I,  p.  458.      4.    Ibid.,  I.,  472. 


158         NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

a  moral,  only  a  natural  fitness.  ^  For  the  want  of 
this  fitness  only  a  part  of  mankind  are  united  to 
Christ.  3 

"While  Hopkins  insists  very  strenuously  on  our  union 
with  Christ,  he  is  careful  to  assert  that  we  do  not 
personally  come  into  possession  of  Christ^s  moral 
character. 

"The  redeemed,  when  perfectly  holy  in  heaven, 
will,  considered  in  and  by  tnemselves,  be  as  deserving 
of  the  divine  displeasure  and  everlasting  punishment 
as  they  ever  were,  and  will  be  so  forever.  They 
continue  in  a  justified  state,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of 
the  favor  of  God,  by  continuing  united  to  Christ; 
and  were  it  possible  that  this  union  between  the  Re- 
deemer and  them  should  cease,  they  would,  they  must 
fall  under  condemnation,  and  sink  into  hell.''  Hence 
their  justification  is  really  conditioned  on  their  per- 
severance. ^ 

Late  in  his  life  Dr.  Hopkins  wrote  a  sermon  in 
which  he  replies  to  the  objection  that  the  doctrine 
of  salvation  by  faith,  opens  the  way  to  a  godless  and 
immoral  life.      He  says: 

"  According  to  the  law  of  faith,  true  holiness  is  as 
necessary  in  order  to  justification  as  if  the  sinner  were 
justified  by  the  merit  of  his  works,  though  in  a 
different  way,  and  for  a  diiferent  reason.  *  *  >i«  This 
faith  itself  is  a  holy  exercise,  as  has  been  proved ; 
and  men  cannot  live   by  faith   but   by  living  a   holy 

life."-  ^  y       ^         y 

Dr.  Smalley  seems  to  have  held  to  a  modified 
view  of  justification  and  to  have  interpreted   the   old 

1.    Ibid.,  I,  p.  473.  g.    Ibid.,  I,  p.  465. 

8.    Ibid.,  I.,  pp.  475,  477.  4.    Ibid.,  III.,  p.  683. 


JUSTIFICATION.  159 

by  the  new  more  fully  than  any  of  his  predecessors. 
He  believed,  that  a  legal  justification  on  the  ground 
that  Christ  literally  satisfied  the  law,  leads  inevitably 
to  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation. 

"The  argument  stands  thus.  God  is  obliged  in 
justice  to  save  men  as  far  as  the  merit  of  Christ  ex- 
tends; but  the  merit  of  Christ  is  sufficient  for  the 
salvation  of  all  men ;  therefore  God  is  obliged  in  just- 
tice  to  save  all.^i 

He  made,  therefore,  a  fitness  of  things  under  the  di- 
vine government  rather  than  an  obligation  under  w^iich 
the  Diety  was  placed,  the  basis  of  justification.  ^  He 
considered  the  aim  of  the  atonement  to  be  the  re- 
moval of  obstacles  to  the  salvation  of  men  rather  than 
placing  God  under  the  necessity  of  making  compen- 
sation for  value  received.  ^  Accordingly  he  denied 
that  Christ  had  any  merit  of  condignity,  his  merit 
was  only  that  of  congruity.  Having  become  man  he 
was  under  law  and  his  obedience  secured  his  own 
good  estate  alone,  he  had  not  earned  any  thing  in 
this  way  to  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  men.^ 

Yet  he  held  to  a  strict  scheme  of  justification, 
one  involving  a  claim  to  eternal  rewards  as  well  as 
the  pardon  of  sin,  one  based  on  union  with  Christ, 
and  one  consistent  with  the  law  and  government  of 
God  maintained  in  their  strictest  integrity. 

"But  it  was  not  enough  that  we  should  be  re- 
deemed from  death.  In  order  to  our  being  heirs  of 
God,  and  having  an  interest  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 

1.    Park's  Collection  of  Essays  on  the  Atonement,  p.  58. 
2.    Ibid.,  p.  76.  3,    Ibid.,  p.  54.  4.    Ibid.,  p.  55. 


160  ^'EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

it  was  necessary  that  the  law  as  a  covenant  of  works 
should  be  fulfilled;  and  so  the  forfeited  inheritance 
of  eternal  life  be  redeemed.  This  our  Saviour  did 
by  his  active  obedience.  *  *  *  These  two  things  are 
implied  in  the  redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 
The  merit  of  his  obedience,  and  the  manifestation  of 
the  inflexibility  of  divine  vindictive  justice,  made  by 
his  sufferings  and  death.  And  these  two  things 
were  necessary  in  order  to  our  being  justified,  and 
yet  the  spirit  of  the  law  be  maintained,  and  God  be 

just"! 

The  means  by  which  the  law  was  maintained  were 
the  sufferings  of  Christ.  When  he  undertook  to 
answer  for  the  offenses  of  men,  "Judgment  was  laid 
to  the  line,  and  righteousness  to  the  plummet'  in  as 
rigorous  and  unrelenting  a  manner  as  if  he  had  act- 
ually been  the  most  odious  criminal  in  all  the  uni- 
verse." ^  Smalley  guards  carefully  against  the  idea 
that  God  can  pardon,  otherwise  than  as  a  judge  ad- 
ministering the  law.  "By  the  death  of  Christ,  we 
have  the  strongest  possible  proof  that  no  sovereign 
pardons — no  pardons  without  a  sacrifice  to  satisfy  the 
law,  are  ever  to  be  expected  from  God.  "^ 

He  makes  gospel  justification  in  effect  the  same 
as  legal  justification,  a  result  of  union  with  Christ 
effected  by  faith.  ^ 

Dr.  Emmons'  view  of  justification  is  simple  and 
may  be  easily  presented.  It  is  the  goal  of  the  New 
England  tendency.  He  considered  it  the  equivalent 
of  forgiveness  and  that  it  does  not  include  a  title  to 
the  rewards  of  heaven.  He  held  that  it  was  granted 
for  Christ's   sake,  because  of  the   atonement  he   had 

1.   Parks  Collection,  p.  50.  2.    Ibid.,  p.  72. 

3.    Sermons,  Middletown,  1814,  p.  144.  4.    Ibid.,  p.  141. 


JUSTIFICATION.  161 

made,  and  that  it  is  the  only  thing  which  God 
bestows  for  Christ's  sake.  When  one  is  regenerated 
he  may  pray  to  God  for  pardon,  but  regeneration  is 
not  an  object  of  prayer.  God  bestows  that  as  a 
sovereign.  When  one's  sins  are  forgiven  he  may 
live  the  life  of  godliness,  and  by  his  good  works 
secure  a  reward,  win  the  blessed  life  of  heaven,  but 
this  is  never  granted  for  anything  that  Christ  has 
done.  Only  his  suffering,  not  his  obedience,  wrought 
out  the  atonement. 

''They  (Antinomians)  suppose  that  believers  are 
under  no  obligation  to  perform  good  works,  because 
Christ  has  both  suffered  and  obeyed  in  their  room 
and  stead,  so  that  their  justification  and  salvation  do 
not  in  the  least  depend  upon  anything  they  can  do, 
either  before  or  after  they  are  justified.  They  hold 
that  neither  good  works  nor  bad  works  can  promote 
or  prevent  the  salvation  of  believers.  They  build 
this  false  and  dangerous  opinion  upon  what  the 
Scripture  says  concerning  justification  by  faith  alone, 
without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  They  suppose  that 
justification  implies  not  only  forgiveness,  but  a  title 
to  eternal  life  ;  and  that  there  is  no  difference  between 
God's  forgiving  and  rewarding  believers.  This  is  a 
great  mistake  ;  for  though  God  forgives  believers  solely 
on  account  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  yet  he  does  not 
reward  them  for  his  obedience,  but  for  their  own."i 

Dr.  Griffin's  view  of  justification  may  be  readily 
inferred  from  his  theory  of  the  atonement,  wliich 
will  be  noticed  hereafter.  His  idea  of  the  higher 
ransom,  consisting  of  the  merit  of  Christ's  obedience 
in   addition   to  the  atonement  by  his    blood,   would 

1.    Works,  V,  p.  77. 


162  ^^EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

require  that  justification  should  include  a  title  to  the 
rewards  of  heaven.  But  he  strongly  opposes  a  legal 
justification.  He  says  of  the  Old  School  doctrine 
that  it  is  commercial  and  involves  two  errors  : 

"  The  first  is,  that  it  makes  the  union  which  really 
subsists  between  Christ  and  believers  to  lie  between 
Christ  and  the  elect.  The  second  is,  that  it  sup- 
poses a  legal  oneness,  a  legal  imputation,  a  legal 
obligation  to  suffer,  a  legal  punishment,  a  legal 
satisfaction,  and  a  legal  claim  on  the  part  of  the 
redeemed."  ^ 

He  is  ready  to  adopt  all  these  expressions  if  a 
word  like  moral  or  practical  is  substituted  for  legal. 
He  considers  that  the  advocates  of  legality  press 
"the  figurative  language  of  Scripture  into  a  literal 
meaning." 

'^No  proposition  can  be  more  contradictory  than 
that  the  justification  of  a  transgressor  is  a  legal 
transaction,  or  that  a  sinner  is  literally  righteous,  or 
that  a  man  is  justly  entitled  to  pardon."  ^ 

Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor  treated  elaborately  of  justifi- 
cation. Much  of  his  attention  was  turned  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  and  to  a  refutation  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  view,  but  his  own  view  is  also 
clearly  stated,  and  is  of  a  strongly  New  England 
type.  He  gives  special  prominence  to  the  idea  of 
general  justice,  and  in  that  way  separates  the  subject 
wholly  from  mystical  union,  imputation  and  distrib- 
utive justice.      He  gives  this  studied  definition : 

1.    Park's  Collection,  p.  222.  2.    Ibid.,  p.  240. 


JUSTIFICATION.  163 

"Justification  as  an  act  of  God  in  the  relation  of 
Law-giver  and  Judge  of  men  is  authoritative — making, 
or  causing,  or  determining  a  disobedient  subject  of 
his  law  to  stand  relatively  right  in  respect  to  its 
sanctions  ;  not  according  to  the  principles  of  distrib- 
utive justice,  but  according  to  the  principles  of 
general  justice  and  of  general  benevolence."  ^ 


?>  1 


Here  the  Judge  has  authority,  is  not  controlled 
by  the  letter  of  the  law  ;  he  makes  the  subject  right 
relatively,  for  practical  purposes ;  in  respect  to  sanc- 
tions, not  commands  ;  on  the  ground  of  general,  not 
distributive  justice.  The  bold  way  in  which  he 
sweeps  aside  distributive  justice  is  indicated  by  the 
following  : 

"There  is  no  act  of  God  as  a  judge  under  the 
revealed  system  of  grace,  directly  determining  the 
relation  of  men  to  the  sanctions  of  law,  according  to 
the  principles  of  mere  law.  It  is  the  doctrine  of 
Paul,  that  the  whole  world  w^ill  be  judged  according 
to  the  Gospel.'' 2 

.  .  .  "Distributive  justice  as  we  have  before  shown, 
is  not  an  essential  attribute  of  a  perfect  moral  ruler 
and  judge  in  all  cases;  but  only  under  a  system  of 
mere  law.  Or  thus,  while  it  is  necessary  that  such 
a  Ruler  should  treat  his  subjects  according  to  the 
principles  of  distributive  justice  in  all  cases  under  a 
system  of  mere  law,  it  is  not  necessary  that  he 
should    so    treat    them  under  a   system    of  law  and 

frace  combined  in  one  by  a  complete  atonement, 
ustice  as  an  essential  attribute  in  such  a  Ruler,  hi 
all  cases  is  general  justice,  or  an  immutable  disposi- 
tion or  purpose  prompted  by  benevolence,  to  uphold 
the  authority  of  law  as  indispensable  to  the  general 
good.      This  is  the   only  attribute   which,  under    the 

1.    RevealedTheology,  p.  341.  2.    Ibid.,  p.  357. 


164  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

name  of  justice^  is  essentially  involved   in  the  perfect 
character  of  a  perfect  Ruler  and  Judge."  ^ 

President  Fairchild  says  : 

"  The  sinner  having  turned  from  sin,  God  forgives 
him  ;  this  is  justification.  Justification  is  the  pardon 
of  sin  that  is  past.  The  conditions  of  justification 
are  of  two  kinds,  governmental  and  subjective  ; — 
governmental,  the  atonement,  which  makes  pardon 
safe ;  personal,  repentance,  turning  from  sin  to  right- 
eousness. As  repentance  is  the  condition  of  justifi- 
cation, so  continued  repentance,  or  penitence,  or 
continued  obedience  is  a  condition  of  continued 
justification."  ^ 

A  view  essentially  the  same  was  entertained  by 
his  predecessor  in  the  presidency  at  Oberlin,  which 
we  give  a  little  more  in  detail. 

President  Finney  says,  in  controverting  the  doc- 
trine of  Chalmers  and  others : 

^^Justification  is  not  forensic  or  judicial,  a  judge 
never  pardons.  It  consists  in  the  sinner's  oeing 
ultimately  governmentally  treated  as  if  he  were  just; 
it  consists  in  a  governmental  decree  of  pardon  or 
amnesty.  It  is  the  act  of  either  the  law-making  or 
executive  department  of  the  government.  The  con- 
ditions of  justification  are,  (1)  the  vicarious  sufferings 
or  atonement  of  Christ, — this  is  the  condition,  not 
the  ground  of  justification;  Christ's  obedience  was 
due  to  the  law  and  was  not  vicarious,  his  suffering 
was  vicarious  and  not  due  ;  (2)  repentance;  (3)  faith, 
but  a  condition  only  as  it  secures  sanctifi cation ; 
(4)  present  sanctification,  that  is  full  consecration,  is 

1.    Ibid.,  p,  370.  2.    Theology  pp,  276,277. 


JUSTIFICATION.  165 

a  condition,  not  ground  of  justification.  The  peni- 
tent soul  remains  justified  no  longer  than  this  full 
consecration  continues.''  ^ 

Perseverence  is  also  necessary  to  ultimate  justifi- 
cation. Finney  says  of  the  ultimate  ground  of 
justification  ; 

"It  is  not  (1)  Christ's  paying  the  penalty  of  the 
law;  is  not  (2)  our    works     of    obedience ;     is     not 

(3)  Christ's  atonement  or  mediatorial    work;    is    not 

(4)  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  and 
sanctincation ;  but  (5)  the  disinterested  and  infinite 
love  of  God,  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
true  and  only  foundation  of  the  justification  and 
salvation  of  sinners."  ^ 

Professor  Wright  says  that  Finney,  deploring  the 
low  standard  of  piety  among  professing  Christians, 
"attributed  it  largely  to  the  fact  that  the  prevailing 
doctrine  of  justification  was  erroneous  in  its  concep- 
tion and  Antinomian  in  its  tendency."  ^ 

Dr.  Buslinell's  theory  of  justification,  like  his 
theory  of  the  atonement,  is  very  similar  in  form  to 
that  of  strict  Calvinism.  Yet  he  really  holds  the 
legal  satisfaction  theory  in  abhorrence.  He  maintains 
that  we  are  justified  by  the  imputation  to  us  of 
God's  righteousness,  but  he  gives  his  own  interpre- 
tation to  these  theological  terms.  To  justify  is,  with 
him,  to  make  righteous,  not  declare  righteous ;  yet 
it  is  not  to  make  righteous  the  personal  character, 
or  to  sanctify, — the  error  of  the  Roman  Catholics, — 
but  to  make  righteous  by  an  overwhelming  and  over- 

1.  and  2.    Theology,  English  edition,  pp.  546-564. 
3.    Life  of  Finney,  p.  247. 


166  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

powering  demonstration  of  the  divine  character 
through  Jesus  Christ.  The  impression,  by  means 
of  the  incarnation,  on  the  minds  of  men  of  the  divine 
righteousness,  seems  to  have  been  his  idea  of  impu- 
tation. This  view  hardly  comes  within  the  range  of 
New  England  theology,  but  having  been  presented 
as  a  refutation  of  it,  may  be  briefly  noticed.  The 
author's  language  will  best  express  his  thoughts. 
He  argues  at  length  the  position  that  the  Scriptural 
word  translated  justify  never  refers  to  forensic  justi- 
fication, aud  adopts  the  conclusion  that, 

"  In  Christian  justification  there  is  no  reference 
of  thought  whatever  to  the  satisfaction  of  God's 
retributive  justice,  or  to  any  acquittal  passed  on 
guilty  men,  because  the  score  of  tlieir  account  with 
God's  justice  has  been  made  even  by  the  sufferings 
of  Christ."  1 

He  thus  characterizes  a  righteousness  procured  by 
the  penal  sufferings  of  Christ : 

"A  righteousness  that  is  in  fact  mere  suffering, 
and  as  far  as  the  mode  of  the  fact  is  concerned,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  righteousness  at  all,  but  only 
with  providing  a  way  for  unrighteousness.  A 
theologic  invention  more  dreadful  than  this,  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive."  ^ 

With  him,  "The  true  Christian  justification  is 
that  which  makes  righteous."  ^  The  obscure  point  in 
this  scheme  is  the  righteousness  of  God  made  man's 
by  a  process  neither  sanctifying  nor  forensic.  His 
exposition  of  the  matter  is  this : 

1.    Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I,  p,  415.  2.    Ibid.,  II,  p.  186. 

3.    Ibid.,  II,  p.  190. 


JUSTIFICATION.  157 

"Here  then  is  the  grand  renewing  office  and  aim 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  He  comes  to  men  groping 
in  a  state  of  separation  from  God,  consciously  not 
even  with  their  own  standards  of  good,  and,  what  is 
more,  consciously  not  able  to  be — self-condemned  when 
they  are  trying  most  to  justify  themselves,  and  de- 
spairing even  the  more,  the  more  they  endeavor  to 
make  themselves  righteous  by  their  own  works — to 
such  Christ  comes  forth,  out  of  the  righteousness  of 
God,  and  also  in  the  righteousness  of  God,  that  he 
may  be  the  righteousness  of  God  upon  all  them  that 
believe,  and  are  so  brought  close  enough  to  him  in 
their  faith,  to  receive  his  inspirations.  And  this  is 
the  state  of  justification,  not  because  some  debt  is 
made  even  by  the  penal  suffering  of  Christ,  but  be- 
cause that  normal  connection  of  God  is  restored  by 
his  sacrifice,  which  permits  the  righteousness  of  God 
to  renew  its  everlasting  flow."^ 

We  have  the  following  explanation  of  imputed 
righteousness : 

"The  experimental,  never-to-be  antiquated,  scrip- 
ture truth  of  imputed  righteousness,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  this :  That  the  soul,  when  it  is  gained  to  faith,  is 
brought  back,  according  to  the  degree  of  faith,  into 
its  original  normal  relation  to  God ;  to  be  invested  in 
God^s  light,  feeling,  character — in  one  word,  right- 
eousness— and  live  derivatively  from  him.  It  is 
not  made  righteous,  in  the  sense  of  being  set  in  a 
state  of  self-centered  righteousness,  to  be  maintained 
by  an  ability  complete  in  the  person,  but  it  is  made 
righteous  in  the  sense  of  being  always  to  be  made 
righteous;  just  as  the  day  is  made  luminous,  not  by 
the  light  of  sunrise  staying  in  it,  or  held  fast  by  it, 
])ut  by  the  ceaseless  outflow  of  the  solar  eifulgence. 
Considered  in  this  view,  the  sinning  man  justified  is 

1.    Ibid.,  I,  p.  432;  II.  p.  203. 


168  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

never  thought  of  as  being,  or  to  be,  just  in  himself;  but 
he  is  to  be  counted  so,  be  so  by  imputation,  because 
his  faith  holds  him  to  a  relation  to  God,  where  the 
sun  of  his  righteousness  will  be  forever  gilding  him 
with  its  fresh  radiations."  ^ 


1.    Ibid.,  11,  p.  314, 


CHAPTER    ly. 

HOPKINSIAX    PECULIARITIES. 

New  England  Theology  is  not  wholly  a  theoretical 
scheme,  its  doctrines  were  proclaimed  from  the  pulpit 
and  enforced  in  practice.  The  exercise  of  disin- 
terested affection  w^as  made  the  sum  of  Christian 
character,  and  many  Hopkinsians  believed  that  souls 
were  endangered  by  the  failure  to  present  to  the 
people  their  peculiar  views.  Especially  was  there 
the  most  earnest  contention  concerning  the  means  of 
grace.  Whether  the  impenitent  can  use  the  means 
of  grace  at  all,  was  a  topic  that  called  out  more 
intense  feeling  than  any  other  that  came  under  dis- 
cussion. The  expression,  "  Unregenerate  Doings," 
has,  for  more  than  a  century,  suggested  one  of  the 
fiercest  theological  debates.  On  this  theme  kindred 
theologians  have  decidedly  differed,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  discussion.  The  array  of  opposing 
parties  has  been  mthin  the  Calvinistic  fold. 

Inasmuch  as  Dr.  Hemmenway  is  made  prominent 
in  this  discussion,  and  since  his  name  is  not  so 
familiar  as  that  of  Hopkins  or  that  of  Emmons,  a 
brief  reference  to  him  will  be  in  place  before  taking 
up  the  debate  in  which  he  was  engaged. 


170  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Moses  Hemmenway  was  born  in  Framiugham, 
Mass.,  in  1735,  graduated  at  Harvard  College  in 
1755,  a  classmate  of  President  John  Adams.  He 
was  ordained  pastor  of  the  church  in  Wells,  Me.,  in 
1759,  where  he  had  already  preached  about  two 
years.  He  continued  in  this  office  till  his  death  in 
1811.  He  was  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  New  Eng- 
land ministers  of  his  day,  and  both  as  a  preacher 
and  a  scholar  was  worthy  of  larger  notice  than  he 
has  received.  He  was  eminent  in  culture  as  well  as 
in  intellectual  endoAvments.  A  pupil  whom  he  fitted 
for  college,  says  of  him  : 

"  Virgil  was  his  favorite  among  the  Latin  classics. 
After  one  of  my  recitations  to  him  in  that  author  he 
observed  that  he  retained  in  his  memory  hundreds  of 
lines  which  he  had  taken  no  pains  to  commit,  beyond 
that  repetition  of  them  which  was  necessary  in  pre- 
paring and  reciting  his  lessons.  Then  passing  to 
me  his  copy  of  Virgil,  that  I  might  see  if  any  mis- 
takes were  made,  he  repeated  with  perfect  readiness 
and  precision  more  than  a  hundred  lines  which  he 
had  thus,  without  any  designed  effort,  committed 
to  memory.'^  ^ 

Eev.  Daniel  Dana,  D.D.,  writes  of  him  : 

"His  favorite  authors  were  Turretin,  Owen, 
Edwards  and  other  great  original  writers.  But  his 
researches  were  unconfined.  He  expatiated  in  a 
wide  sphere.  His  learning,  especially  his  theological 
learning,  was  at  once  extensive  and  accurate.  Among 
the  ^  eminent  divines  of  our  country,  few  were  so 
familiar  as  he  with  the  writings  of  the  ancient 
Fathers.    *    *    *    Dr.   Hemmenway  was  much  em- 

1.    Sprague's  Annals,  I,  p.  542. 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  171 

ployed  in  councils,  especially  in  cases  of  difficulty. 
His  opinions  on  ecclesiastical  subjects  were  deliber- 
ately formed  and  firmly  maintained.  They  had  great 
weight  with  his  ministerial  brethren  and  with  the 
churches.  With  some  they  were  almost  oracular. 
Still  he  was  never  overbearing  nor  pertinacious.  De- 
voted to  truth  and  right,  ne  loved  peaceful  and 
healing  measures.  >i^  ^  *  He  was  familiar  with 
the  ancient  classics  of  Greece  and  Rome.  He  had 
a  lively  relish  for  their  beauties,  and  his  memory 
was  amply  stored  with  their  most  remarkable  pass- 
ages. Indeed  it  was  a  rich  repository  of  whatever 
he  deemed  exquisite,  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
writings.''  ^ 

The  above  mentioned  qualities  appear  in  his  ser- 
mons and  in  his  controversial  essays.  His  style  is 
clear  and  elegant,  his  treatment  of  doctrines  is  char- 
acterized by  accurate  information  and  distinct  con- 
ceptions. In  his  philosophical  treatises  he  evinces 
a  knowledge  of  psychology  that  was  rare  in  his  day 
and  adopted  some  views  that  became  popular  at  a 
later  date.  His  discussions  were  also  characterized 
by  frankness  and  a  ready  confession  of  difficulties. 
He  adopted  his  theories  as  those  on  the  whole  most 
rational,  not  as  those  above  criticism.  He  always 
supported  his  views  with  studied  argumentation  and 
avoided  mere  dogmatic  assertion. 


THE   CONFLICT  OF   NEW   ENGLAND  THEOLOGY  WITH 
MODERATE   CALVINISM. 

The  difference  between  the   old  divinity  and  the 
new  did  not  at  first  seem  very  marked.      To  this 

1.    Ibid.,  I,  p   545. 


172        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

day  each  side  claims  Edwards  as  its  leader.  If  it 
should  now  be  granted  that  he  was  the  leader  of  the 
new,  it  would  be  necessary  to  confess  that  the  great 
body  of  his  theology  was  in  accord  with  the  old. 
And  the  two  systems  might  for  a  time,  by  friendly 
explanations  have  been  made  to  appear  not  far  apart. 
When,  however,  the  means  of  grace  became  the  theme 
of  discussion,  it  seemed  for  a  time  that  the  contention 
must  be  irreconcilable.  Those  who  tended  strongly 
to  rationalistic  views  believed  that  the  means  of  grace 
opened  a  plain  way  into  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and 
many  of  the  preachers  of  the  day,  some  of  new 
divinity  proclivities,  revered  them  as  providing 
the  divinely  appointed  method  of  salvation.  Rev. 
Jedidiah  Mills,  of  Ripton,  Conn.,  speaks  of  the  pre- 
cious means  of  grace  and  is  shocked  at  the  thought 
that  any  minister  of  the  gospel  should  treat  them 
with  slight  or  disrespect.  The  Hopkinsians  seeing 
the  danger  that  the  impenitent  should  rest  content 
with  the  use  of  means,  assailed  the  very  idea  of  there 
being  anything  intermediate  between  impenitence  and 
penitence  and  called  upon  sinners  to  turn  instantly 
from  sin  to  the  service  of  God.  The  contest  over 
this  point  was  sharp,  yet,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the 
difference  was  theoretical  rather  than  practical.  The 
Hopkinsians  were  compelled  to  admit  that  no  one 
can  preach  without  commending  the  means  of  grace,  and 
that  none  turn  from  sin  except  with  the  use  of  means. 
Still  their  acute  speculations  and  subtle  inferences 
have  had  so  wide  acceptance,  that  their  doctrine  of 
immediateness  must  be  recognized  as  characteristic 
of  New  England  thinking,   and   was   naturally  fixed 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  173 

upon,  in  other  parts  of  the  country,  as  really  distinc- 
tive of  it.  The  Biblical  Repertory  of  1835,  in  a 
review  of  Barnes'  Commentary  on  Romans,  by  an 
author  who  supposed  the  divinity  of  the  Eastern 
States  was  a  thing  of  the  past,  asks : 

"Where  are  all  the  Hopkinsians  and  Emmonites 
of  former  days?  AVho  now  hears  of  the  divine 
efficiency  in  the  production  of  evil ;  or  that  man  must 
be  willing  to  be  damned  for  the  glory  of  God ;  that 
unregenerate  men  ought  not  to  pray  or  use  the  means 
of  grace?  Even  the  theory  that  holiness  is  but  a 
means  of  happiness ;  that  disinterested  benevolence  is 
the  only  moral  good  ;  and  that  all  sin  is  selfishness, 
seems  to  be  fast  sinking  with  the  dimmer  stars  of 
the  same  constellation  beneath  the  waves  of  oblivion/' 

The  views  here  referred  to  are,  however,  not  yet 
forgotten;  indeed  some  of  the  results  flowing  from 
them  have  never  been  more  fully  accepted  than  at 
the  present  time.  These  peculiar  ideas  came  to  man- 
ifestation gradually,  there  are  intimations  of  them  as 
far  back  as  Edwards'  day.  Smalley,  in  1769,  alludes 
to  the  duties  of  the  unregenerate,  as  if  the  topic  were 
well  known  and  had  excited  popular  interest;  but 
most  of  the  Hopkinsian  peculiarities  were  brought 
into  prominence  through  a  public  discussion  carried 
on  by  pamphlets  published  from  time  to  time  in  the 
course  of  the  eight  years  between  1765  and  1773. 
Hopkins  was  at  the  height  of  his  strength  during 
these  eight  years,  being  forty-four  when  the  debate 
began.  His  experiences  of  this  period  were  also 
such  as  to  excite  both  his  intellect  and  his  feelings, 
as  midway  in  it,  in  1769,  he  was  dismissed  from  his 


174       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

parish  in  Great  Barrington,  after  some  trying  occur- 
rences, and  fifteen  months  later,  not  without  annoying 
opposition,  was  settled  over  the  First  Congregational 
Church  in  Newport,  K.  I.  These  annoyances  pro- 
bably had  some  effect  upon  his  literary  work.  His 
controversial  treatises  were  marked  by  great  intel- 
lectual vigor,  but  their  amiability  was  not  so  con- 
spicuous. Though  reported  to  have  been  patient  and 
concliatory  in  colloquial  discussion,  he  appeared  in 
his  writings  as  a  most  disagreeable  debater.  His 
confidence  in  his  own  theological  scheme  and  his 
somewhat  harsh  and  blunt  nature  led  to  some  lack 
of  courtesy  towards  his  opponents  and  blinded  him 
to  the  weaknesses  of  his  own  arguments.  It  seems 
never  to  have  occurred  to  him  that  he  could  be 
wrong  himself,  or  that  he  had  anything  to  learn  from 
his  opponents.  He  seems  never  to  have  thought  it 
desirable  to  survey  and  define  the  grounds  which  the 
two  parties  held  in  common,  but  to  have  delighted 
in  magnifying  differences  and  charging  manifold 
errors.  He  did  not  understand  the  art  of  saving  his 
own  time  and  that  of  his  readers  by  embracing  the 
essay  to  be  answered  as  a  whole  and  replying  to  it 
once  for  all.  His  habit  was  to  reply  and  re-reply 
as  often  as  he  found  a  statement  which  he  could  not 
accept.  His  chief  defect  as  a  controversialist  was 
his  incompetence  to  put  himself  in  the  place  of  his 
opponent, — the  incompetence  to  apprehend  an  adverse 
argument  as  it  was  apprehended  by  the  person  who 
used  it.  He  estimated  every  argument  from  his  own 
standpoint, — often  the  position  controverted  by  the 
other  side,  so  that  much  of  his  argumentation  seemed 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  I75 

to  his  opponents  a  begging  of  the  question.  He 
must  have  known,  at  times,  that  he  was  antagoniz- 
ing his  opponent's  expressions  rather  than  his  thoughts. 
The  charge  of  misrepresentation  was  constantly  made 
against  him.  Dr.  Hemmenway,  to  whom  we  shall 
refer  more  particularly  hereafter,  makes  it  more  than 
twenty  times  in  one  essay.  Rev.  William  Hart  of 
Saybrook,  says  to  him: 

"Indeed,  sir,  you  do  not  write  in  a  good  spirit. 
In  your  reply  to  Mr.  Mills,  you  treated  tliat  worthy 
father  very  ill,  in  an  ungenerous,  miworthy  manner. 
This  is  the  judgment  of  all  I  have  heard  speak  of 
it,  who  have  read  it.  And  now  besides  misrepre- 
senting many  things  to  your  readers,  you  have  man- 
ifestly endeavored  to  injure  me,  and  render  me  the 
object  of  unjust  popular  odium  and  contempt.'' 

Hopkins  acknowledged  that  he  had  been  too  severe 
in  his  treatment  of  Mr.  Mills ;  Professor  Park  in  his 
Memoir  of  Hopkins,  admits  there  was  no  adequate 
reason  for  his  overbearing  temper  towards  Mr.  Hart. 
In  the  same  Memoir  he  says  of  Dr.  Hemmenway, 
that  in  his  reply  to  Hopkins  he  "was  driven  to  the 
well  understood  methods  of  a  defeated  controversialist. 
He  heaps  upon  our  author  injurious  charges  of  ignor- 
ance, pride,  anger,  Arminianism,  Pelagianism,  et  id 
omne  genusJ^'^  Yet  Dr.  Hemmenway  had  no  con- 
sciousness of  defeat  and  supposed  he  was  only 
imitating  the  author  whom  he  was  criticising. 

Whatever  is  to  be  said  of  the  spirit  of  these  men, 
all  will  admit  that  they  were  strong  thinkers  and 
earnest  seekers  for  the  truth.      A  brief  survey  of  the 

1.    Hopkins  Works,  I.,  Memoir,  p.  198. 


176  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

events  in  their  order  will  be  given,  that  the  points 
in  controversy  may  afterwards  be  presented  by  them- 
selves. 

In  1761  Rev.  Jonathan  Mayhew,  D.  D.,  of  Bos- 
ton, published  two  sermons  on  striving  to  enter  in 
at  the  strait  gate.  In  these  discourses  he  advo- 
cated the  doctrine,  that  sinners  have  power  to  accept 
the  conditions  of  salvation,  that  regeneration  follows 
upon  acts  which  they  may  put  forth, — and  may  be 
expected  to  put  forth.      He  says : 

"  It  is  a  reflection  on  the  goodness  and  mercy  of 
God  to  suppose  that  we  might  sincerely  and  earnest- 
ly endeavor,  in  the  use  of  proper  means  to  learn  the 
way  of  salvation  from  Christ,  or  the  inspired  Scrip- 
tures, and  yet  not  find  it." 

He  understood  the  text  to  require  great  zeal  in 
seeking  salvation.  The  question.  Can  an  unconverted 
man  strive  as  required?  he  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive. Still  he  held  that  no  one  would  be  disposed 
to  strive  without  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  taught,  as  a  general  truth,  that  there  are  prom- 
ises and  invitations  to  the  unregenerate  in  the  Scrip- 
tures whence  it  may  be  inferred  that,  if  they  strive, 
in  the  manner  they  ought  and  may,  to  attain 
forgiveness  and  salvation,  God  will  afford  them  all 
the  influences  of  his  Spirit  and  grace  which  are 
necessary  for  that  end. 

In  1765  Dr.  Hopkins  reviewed  these  discourses  in 
a  pamphlet  entitled,  in  part,  "An  Inquiry  Concern- 
ing the  Promises  of  the  Gospel :  Whether  any  of 
them  are  made  to  the  Exercises  and  Doings  of  Per- 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  1^7 

sons  in  an  Unregenerate  State.''  He  accounts  for 
the  late  appearance  of  his  essay, — four  years  after  the 
publication  of  the  sermons, — by  saying  it  was  a  long 
time  before  he  read  the  sermons,  and  that  he  then 
waited  for  some  one  else  to  reply  to  them.  The 
import  of  this  work  may  be  inferred  from  the  head- 
ing of  the  eighth  section :  "  Arguments  to  prove  that 
there  are  no  promises  of  regenerating  grace  or  salva- 
tion in  the  Scripture  to  the  Exercises  and  Doings  of 
Unregenerate  Men." 

Dr.  Mayhew  made  no  reply  to  this  criticism  of 
his  sermons.  He  died  the  following  year,  1766,  but 
he  had  not  written  for  the  purpose  of  controversy, 
and  probably  would  not  have  replied  in  any  case. 
Dr.  Mayhew  has  been  spoken  of  as  the  first  Unita- 
rian among  the  Boston  clergy,  but  it  would  be 
difficult  to  fix  the  date  of  the  rise  of  Unitarianism 
in  this  country.  The  Mayhews  tended  to  liberal 
theology  and  read  such  authors  as  Whitby,  Clarke, 
Taylor  and  Emlyn,  whose  works  Dr.  Bellamy, 
writing  in  1759,  says  Avere  in  great  demand.  Ex- 
perience Mayhew,  while  claiming  to  be  a  Calvinist, 
admits  that  his  views  had  been  modified  by  the 
above  named  authors.  His  son,  Jonathan,  is  under- 
stood to  have  gone  quite  beyond  the  father  in  his 
liberal  sentiments. 

But  Hopkins'  views  did  not  accord  with  the  tra- 
ditional Calvinism  and  roused  opposition  among 
persons  of  unquestioned  orthodoxy.  Rev.  Jedidiah 
Mills,  differing  widely  in  his  views  and  spirit  from 
Mayhew,  belonging  to  the  revival  party  in  Xew  Eng- 
land, took  exception  to  some  of  the  positions  assumed 


178  NEW    ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

by  Dr.  Hopkins.  He  thought  Dr.  Hopkins  greatly 
undervalued  the  means  of  grace,  and  in  1767  pub- 
lished a  pamphlet  of  124  pages,  criticising  him  mainly 
on  that  point.  The  same  year  Eev.  Moses  Hemmen- 
way  published  seven  sermons  on  the  obligation  and 
encouragement  of  the  unregenerate  to  use  the  means 
of  grace.  He  agreed  substantially  with  Mr.  Mills. 
Two  years  later,  in  1769,  the  year  of  his  dismissal 
from  Great  Barrington,  Hopkins  published  a  reply 
to  Mr.  Mills,  in  the  preparation  of  which  he  prob- 
ably had  in  mind  Hemmenway's  sermons.  This 
was  his  most  carefully  written  treatise  on  the  subject 
in  debate,  under  the  title,  "The  true  state  and  char- 
acter of  the  Unregenerate,  stripped  of  all  Misrepre- 
sentation and  Disguise.'^  Rev.  William  Hart  pub- 
lished the  same  year  a  brochure  containing  brief 
remarks  '  on  a  number  of  false  propositions  and 
dangerous  errors,  collected  out  of  sundry  discourses 
lately  published,  wrote  by  Dr.  Whitaker  and  Mr. 
Hopkins.'  Near  this  time  appeared  an  anonymous 
pamphlet  ridiculing  Hopkins'  doctrines;  characteriz- 
ing them  as  Hopkintonian  or  Hopkinsian.  The 
latter  term  has  come  into  popular  use  and  was  not 
long  a  term  of  reproach.  This  pamphlet  is  supposed 
to  have  been  written  by  Mr.  Hart,  of  Saybrook,  and 
Hopkins  thought  it  written  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting his  settlement  at  Newport.  Hopkins  replied 
to  Hart  in  1770,  making  no  allusion  to  the  anony- 
mous tract,  but  he  allowed  himself  to  be  too  much 
irritated  and  betrayed  a  sensitiveness  that  has  been 
attributed  to  the  effect  of  that  publication.  This 
reply  is  not  to  be  found  among  the  author's  collected 


CALVINISM   AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  179 

works.  Mr.  Hart  at  once  wrote  in  response  to  this 
paper,  accusing  Hopkins  of  misrepresentation,  and  of 
injurious,  unfriendly  and  ungentlemanly  treatment. 
In  1771  Mr.  Hart  published  his  animadversions  on 
President  Edwards'  treatise  on  Virtue.  This  was 
written  with  a  view  to  its  bearing  on  the  controversy 
in  progress.  Mr.  Hemmenway  in  the  following 
year,  1772,  published  his  ^^Vindication  of  the  power, 
obligation  and  encouragement  of  the  unregenerate  to 
attend  the  means  of  grace  ;  Against  the  exceptions 
of  Mr.  Samuel  Hopkins.'^  About  the  same  time 
Moses  Mather,  (afterwards  Dr.  Mather)  pastor  of  a 
church  then  in  Stanford,  Conn.,  now  in  Darien, 
wrote  in  opposition  to  Edwards,  Bellamy  and 
Hoi)kins.  The  next  year,  1773,  Hopkins  published 
his  work  on  the  nature  of  true  holiness,  with  an 
appendix  in  which  he  replied  to  Mather,  Hart  and 
Hemmenway. 

This  closed  the  controversy  so  far  as  Hopkins 
was  concerned.  Mr.  Hemmenway  rejoined  in  1774, 
in  an  able  review  of  Hopkins,  in  which,  however,  he 
gave  way  to  too  free  an  expression  of  his  personal 
feelings. 

There  should  have  been  no  acrimony  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  these  topics,  for  the  points  of  difference 
can  be  clearly  stated,  the  position  of  each  disputant 
readily  defined,  and  the  arguments  upon  each  side 
easily  understood.  The  general  topic  is;  the  icay  of 
life.  How  shall  an  unregenerate  man  pass  into  the 
state  of  holiness  and  salvation?  One  can  easily  reply: 
^believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved/  but  this  at  once  suggests  the  questions;   how 


180  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

shall  one  believe?  how  are  we  to  attain  to  penitence 
and  faith?  The  parties  differed  as  to  the  antecedents 
of  conversion, — the  antecedents  as  they  ordinarily 
occur  in  the  providence  of  God.  There  were  Ar- 
minians  who  were  opposed  to  the  Hopkinsian  views 
upon  this  topic,  but  the  views  of  the  Moderate  Cal- 
vinists,  sometimes  called  the  Old  Calvinists,  only  will 
be  noticed  here.  They  taught  that  there  are  means 
of  grace,  which  with  the  impenitent  may  be  called 
means  of  regeneration,  which  are  to  be  cherished  as 
of  utmost  value.  These  are  the  truths  of  revelation 
and  the  duties  inculcated  by  them.  These  duties  are, 
study  of  the  word  of  God,  prayer,  attendance  on  pub- 
lic and  private  worship,  and  the  various  practices  of 
Christian  life.  It  was  held  that  the  use  of  means  of 
this  kind  ordinarily,  if  allowed  its  legitimate  effect, 
advanced  one  towards  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  was  not  taught  that  there  was  a  causal 
connection  between  the  use  of  means  and  the  work 
of  the  Spirit,  but  an  actual  connection  established  in 
the  divine  economy.  It  was  held  that  the  soul  in 
the  unregenerate  state  has  no  relish  for  holiness ; 
cannot  embrace  with  cordial  affection  the  duties  and 
practices  of  the  renewed  life  any  more  than  we  can 
take  a  nauseous  drug  with  pleasure.  And  it  was 
held  that  if  one  professed  to  find  pleasure  in  the 
duties  of  religion,  while  his  real  pleasure  was  in 
things  at  war  with  true  godliness,  this  would  be 
hypocrisy,  and  offensive  to  God.  But  these  theolo- 
gians held  that  impenitent  persons  could,  from 
motives  of  prudence,  prompted  by  reason  and  sound 
judgment,  seek  for  that  relish  of  truth  and  Christian 


CALVINISM   AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  181 

life  which  belongs  to  a  renewed  state.  A  sinner 
might  wish  he  were  a  saint ;  sincerely  desire  it,  yet 
have  a  distaste  for  the  life  of  saintliness,  as  one  who 
had  no  pleasure  in  music  might  wish  he  could  enjoy 
its  harmonies.  A  person  in  this  state  of  mind 
might  enter  on  a  reformed  life,  break  off  evil  habits, 
study  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  acquire  an  in- 
creasing appreciation  of  its  value,  and  yet  fall  short 
of  the  new  life.  But  these  theologians  held  that 
one  entering  on  this  reformed  life — a  life  of  inquiry 
and  self-discipline,  was  entering  on  a  career  that 
would  probably  lead  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 
It  was  believed  that  God  would  have  mercy  on  one 
seeking  the  new  life,  though  not  relishing  it.  It 
was  believed,  if  one  waited  on  God  for  his  transform- 
ing power,  the  transforming  power  would  be  granted, 
at  least  might  be  expected  with  a  good  degree  of 
confidence.  It  was  also  held  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  already  working  upon  the  mind  of  the  sinner  who 
takes  this  attitude.  This  is  common  grace — ^pre- 
venient  grace.  And  it  is  to  be  expected  that  one 
who  yields  to  the  promptings  of  pre-venient  grace, 
will  receive  further  influences  of  the  same  spirit  and 
be  made,  in  the  merciful  providence  of  God,  the 
subject  of  effectual,  transforming  grace. 

The  doctrine  was  not,  that  God  is  under  obliga- 
tion to  go  on  and  bring  the  inquiring  sinner  into 
the  renewed  state,  nor  was  it,  that  there  is  any 
promise  to  be  fulfilled  on  condition  of  some  special 
act  of  an  unconverted  man,  but  it  was,  that  God's 
way  of  dealing  with  men  encourages  one  to  believe 
that     sinners    in    the    state    supposed,    will    be    led 


182  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

onward  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  Christian  life  ;  that 
pre-venient  grace,  if  accepted  and  cherished,  though 
in  imperfect  ways,  is  a  kind  of  pledge  of  converting 
grace.  It  was  held  that  the  gospel  is  addressed  to 
a  sinful  and  lost  world ;  that,  while  it  does  not  con- 
sist of  specific  promises  to  the  impenitent,  it  is  a 
general  promise  of  salvation  to  be  granted  on  pre- 
scribed conditions,  among  which  some  acts  of  the 
impenitent  may  be  included.  Christ  came  to  call 
sinners  to  repentance.  The  Moderate  Calvinists  be- 
lieved that  they  preached  a  gospel  of  practical  power. 
They  considered  men  guilty  and  justly  condemned 
because  of  their  sins  ;  they  held  to  the  disrelish  of 
divine  things  and  impotence  to  good  works  on  the 
part  of  the  unrenewed,  yet  they  held  that  the  gospel 
set  before  men  a  course,  on  which  they  had  the  power 
to  enter,  in  which  they  might  have  good  hope  for  fur- 
ther divine  aid.  They  taught  that  the  impenitent  heart 
had  not  what  they  called  ^^a  next  power''  to  repent,  but 
that  it  had  a  next  power  to  wish  it  could  repent,  and 
this  wish  would  receive  response  from  God  in  the 
needed  power  actually  to  repent.  Next  power  is  a 
general  sentiment  or  emotion  which  embraces  a  specific 
act,  or  may  embrace  it.  Self-respect  and  desire  of 
eternal  happiness  may  require  honesty  in  business, 
with  some  men  they  do.  They  are  thus  the  next 
preceding  power  or  principle  from  which  honesty  flows, 
but  self-respect  and  desire  of  eternal  happiness  do  not 
embrace,  as  a  part  of  themselves,  a  cordial  relish  of 
the  service  of  God,  are  not  a  next  power  to  it. 

The    argumentation    of   the    Moderate    Calvinists 
will  be  more  clear  if  we  notice  briefly  their   scheme 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  183 

of  psychology,  already  alluded  to  in  speaking  of  the 
Taste  Scheme. 

This  idea  of  a  next  power,  from  which  actions 
should  go  forth,  implied  that  man  enters  upon  life 
with  a  soul  which  is  a  substance  endowed  with  qual- 
ities and  attributes  of  its  own  ;  that  these  attributes 
under  stimulus-  afforded  by  the  experiences  of  life, 
become  inclinations  or  tendencies  prompting  their 
possessor  to  some  actions  and  deterring  him  from 
others.  It  w^as  held  that  man,  notwithstanding  his 
dependence  on  God,  is  directed  in  his  moral  conduct 
by  these  tendencies,  and  is  the  subject  of  praise  or 
blame  according  as  he  is  governed  by  those  that  are 
good  or  those  that  are  evil.  It  w^as  held  that  these 
tendencies  are  principles  of  action  or  starting  points, 
from  which  actions  can  go  forth,  and  that  one  may 
be  justly  called  upon  to  perform  specific  deeds  con- 
tained in  or  falling  under  these  principles.  These 
principles  or  attributes  constitute  the  emotional 
nature ;  they  are  the  character  of  the  man ;  they  con- 
stitute his  taste.  This  view  is  at  the  foundation  of 
the  taste  scheme  in  contrast  with  the  exercise  scheme, 
and  is  at  the  basis  of  the  philosophy  which  distin- 
guishes the  human  faculties  as  intellect,  sensibility 
and  will — a  distinction  favored  by  Hemmenway  as 
early  as  1772,  adopted  also  by  Dr.  Burton.  Many 
of  the  emotions,  however,  on  this  view  are  looked 
upon  as  voluntary,  being  equivalent  in  many  cases 
to  generic  choices. 

In  accord  with  this  psychology  the  soul  is  capable 
of  moral  acts  proceeding  from  various  principles. 
Gratitude  is  a  moral  act,  accepting  responsibility  for 


184        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

a  just  debt  is  a  moral  act,  but  they  are  not  the 
same,  not  dependent  on  each  other,  and  they  are  not 
exhibitions  of  either  self-love  or  the  love  of  being  in 
general,  but  are  simply  human  duties,  each  resting 
on  its  own  foundation.  There  are  numerous  moral 
acts  of  this  kind,  and  they  constitute  the  character 
of  individuals.  These  acts,  carried  out  from  internal 
purpose  to  outward  realization,  are  duties  performed. 
And  the  man  who  discharges  his  duties  is  considered 
a  better  man  than  the  one  who  refuses  to  discharge 
them.  At  this  point  the  difference  between  Mod- 
erate Calvinism  and  Hopkinsianism  is  conspicuous. 
The  latter  recognized  no  duties  and  no  moral  worth 
except  such  as  come  through  love  of  being  in  gen- 
eral. The  former  taught  that  unregenerate  men 
might  perform  certain  duties  and  still  remain  unre- 
generate. Their  conduct  might  be  right  as  to  the 
matter  while  it  was  still  sinful  because  of  certain 
defects  in  manner.  A  man  may  aid  in  the  support 
of  churches  and  schools  by  generous  contributions  of 
money,  by  deeds  of  self-sacrifice  for  the  public  good, 
and  yet  lack  that  devotion  to  God  which  is  the  chief 
element  of  Christian  life.  They  even  believed 
that  all  these  things  might  be  done  as  acts  of 
obedience  to  a  divine  command.  They  believed 
that  those  who  took  this  course  performed  certain 
duties,  or  partially  performed  them,  and  were  re- 
garded with  more  favor  by  the  Divine  Kuler  than 
when  they  were  more  heedless  of  his  requirements. 
They  held  that  those  who  made  use  of  the  means  of 
grace  had,  ordinarily,  more  grace  given,  and  finally 
converting  grace. 


CALVINISM  AND   HOPKINSIANISM.  185 

This  view  did  not  imply  that  men  are  not  totally 
depraved,  that  is,  defective,  sinful  in  every  moral  act 
while  unconverted,  but   it  did   imply  that  they  were 
not  as  sinful  as  they  would  be  in  a  careless  and  pro- 
fane state.      It  did  not  imply  that  any  of  the  deeds 
of   the    unregenerate  are  holy,  but  that  they  are  not 
sinful  in  all  their  positive  qualities,  and  that  the  same 
deeds  with  the  same  motives  might  be  absorbed  into 
and  made  part  of  a  holy  life.      For  instance,  an   un- 
regenerate man  who  was  educating  a  regenerate   son 
for  the  ministry  in  the  hope  that  he  would  be  useful 
in  the  church,  would,  if  he   were   converted,  continue 
his  course   and   bring   his   son  into   the   ministry   for 
the    reasons    before    entertained    with   the  additional 
reason   that   love    of  Christ  and   sympathy  with  his 
people  impelled  him  to  the  same  thing.     The  following 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  positions  of  Moderate  Cal- 
vinism are  taken   mainly   from    the   writings   of  Dr. 
Hemmenway.      He  adhered  to  a  more   strict  scheme 
of  psychology  than    any  other  one   engaged    in   this 
debate,  though  the  same  general  sentiment  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  all  the  writings  on  his  side   of  the  dis- 
cussion.     After  recounting  some  of  the  duties  which 
devolve  on  all  men,  such  as  avoiding   evil    company, 
study   of  the    way    of  salvation   and  observance    of 
religious    worship,    he   presents   his  main  question  in 
this  threefold  form: 

"Whether  man,  in  his  fallen  and  depraved  state, 
has  any  power  to  perform  these  duties?  Or,  to  speak 
in  more  plain  and  determinate  language ;  whether 
there  be  in  men  unregenerate  any  principle,  which 
may  be  a  foundation  of  their  having    a   will  to   en- 


186  NEW   ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

deavor  and  strive  to  be  delivered  from  a  state  of 
sin  and  misery,  and  obtain  eternal  life  and  salvation, 
and  accordingly  use  means  for  this  purpose?  Or,  to 
vary  the  expression  yet  again,  is  it  consistent  with  a 
state  of  sin,  that  a  man  sliould  desire  to  be  saved, 
and  so  become  disposed  to  seek  salvation  by  attend- 
ing these  instrumental  duties  prescribed  for  this  end  ?  " 

The  author's  argument  upon  these  topics,  running 
through  seven  sermons  and  other  papers  connected 
with  the  discussion  which  the  sermons  called  forth, 
became  involved  and  prolix ;  for  brevity's  sake,  there- 
fore, the  salient  points  will  be  presented,  not  as  an 
exact  reply  to  the  main  question,  but  as  having  an 
obvious  bearing  upon  it  as  well  as  upon  the  entire 
topic,  and  as  affording  in  the  end  the  answer  which 
the  author  intended. 

The  unregenerate  are  able  to  obey  commands  of 
God.  There  may  be  divine  commands  to  perform 
specific  duties, — commands  which  such  men  as  Saul  and 
Cyrus  can  obey  or  disobey,  and  these  men  may  win  the 
divine  favor  or  incur  the  divine  wrath  by  their  conduct 
in  view  of  them.  Amaziah  did  that  which  was  right 
in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  but  not  with  a  perfect  heart. 
The  history  of  his  life  shows  that  God  dealt  with 
him  as  one  partly  obedient,  partly  disobedient.  The 
Ninevites  were  less  odious  to  God  after  listening  to 
the  preaching  of  Jonah,  though  it  is  not  to  be  in- 
ferred that  they  by  their  repentance  passed  into  the 
regenerate  state.  Ahab,  Jehu,  the  Israelites  as  a  na- 
tion, on  occasions,  humbled  themselves  before  God  and 
hearkened  to  his  commandments,  and  were  rewarded 
for    it.      These  commands  contemplated  mainly  secu- 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  187 

lar  duties,  but  spiritual  duties  might  be  included. 
The  unregenerate  have  power  to  obey  in  some  degree 
the  religious  requirements  of  God.  They  have  not 
the  next,  or  habitual  power  to  perform  absolutely 
holy  acts.  They  have  not  in  themselves  the  princi- 
ple or  taste  whence  holy  acts  proceed.  They  lack 
the  proper  aifection  for  that  which  is  holy  while  they 
perform  works  externally  righteous.  In  sucn  a  state 
they  have  the  principles  of  action  requisite  for  a  re- 
form of  life,  for  attendance  on  religious  services  with 
the  desire  of  receiving  spiritual  benefit  therefrom. 
They  have  reason,  conscience,  self-love,  love  of  esteem, 
knowledge  of  revealed  truth,  and  are  often  under 
strong  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  These  motives 
enable  them  sincerely  and  earnestly  to  seek  a  better 
life.  Acts  prompted  by  these  motives  may  not  be 
holy,  are  not,  without  additional  motive  force,  but  it 
is  better,  in  any  case,  to  perform  them  than  to  omit 
them.  Holiness  comprehends  conformity  to  the  com- 
mand of  God  in  respect  to  matter,  manner,  principle 
and  end  of  action.  If  the  unregenerate  lack  the 
principle  out  of  which  one  quality, — holiness  proceeds, 
they  can  perform  things  right  in  matter  and  intended 
for  the  best  ends.  It  is  not  enough  that  deeds  be 
performed  for  benevolent  ends.  They  must  be  right 
in  matter  and  manner,  and  be  the  outflow  of  a  right 
heart  or  temper;  still  if  deeds  are  partially  correct 
they  have  a  degree  of  merit  and  receive  in  some 
sense  the  favorable  regard  of  the  Divine  Ruler. 

These  works  of  the  unregenerate  are  to  be  per- 
formed, not  with  the  idea  of  atoning  for  past  offences, 
or  of  making  one's   self  worthy    of   mercy,  or  as   a 


188  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

covenant  condition  of  acceptance  with  God,  or  with 
the  supposition  that  they  are  the  conditions  on  which 
a  promise  is  based,  or  to  move  the  divine  compassion, 
or  as  acts  of  spiritual  life,  but  are  not  without  a  pur- 
pose. 

"In  general,  our  observance  of  these  duties  is 
required  as  the  ordinary  method  and  means,  whereby 
God  is  pleased  to  prepare  a  sinner  for,  and  then  com- 
municate to  him,  tiiat  saving  grace,  light  and  life, 
whereby  he  becomes  a  new  creature,  and  is  enabled 
and  disposed  unto  those  exercises  and  acts  which  are 
spiritually  good,  and  with  which,  according  to  the 
gospel  promises,  eternal  life  is  connected."  ^ 

More  particularly,  God  requires  sinners  to  read, 
hear,  meditate,  pray,  avoid  temptation,  that  he  may 
save  them  from  their  state  of  sin  and  misery,  and 
that  his  justice  may  be  manifest  in  their  punishment 
if  they  reject  the  gospel.  Why  he  should  save  men 
by  the  use  of  means  cannot  be  very  definitely  ex- 
plained, but  this  can  be  said : 

"  As  there  is  a  beauty  and  wisdom  ai3parent  in  that 
regular  subordination  of  causes  and  effects  which  is 
established  in  the  natural  world,  so  the  same  appears 
in  a  higher  degree  in  that  connection  and  dependence 
of  antecedents  and  consequents,  means  and  ends  which 
is  constituted  in  the  government  of  the  intelligent 
and  moral  world. '^  ^ 

For  such  reasons  as  these  God  calls  upon  men  to 
attend  upon  the  means  of  grace.  They,  on  their  part, 
should  so  attend  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  is  com- 
manded, but  they  should  attend  also  for  the   advan- 

1.    Sermons,  p.  46.  2.    Ibid.,  p,  49. 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  189 

tage  to  be  derived  from  it.  If  their  obedience  in 
the  use  of  means  is  defective  and  not  holy,  it  is  not 
unlawful ;  as  a  positive  act  it  is  righteous,  and  is  the 
source  of  temporal  blessing.  Conscience,  reason,  God's 
law,  the  Holy  Spirit  are  treated  with  more  honor  in 
this  mode  of  life  than  when  disregarded.  And  in 
addition  to  temporal  blessings,  it  may  be  expected 
that  spiritual  good  will  follow.  Hemmenway  quotes, 
in  confirmation  of  this  teaching,  from  Owen  thus : 

"There  is  a  double  end  in  pressing  on  men  the 
observ^ance  of  duties  with  the  supposition  of  the  state 
of  impotency.  (1)  To  prevent  them  from  such 
courses  of  sin  as  would  harden  them,  and  so  render 
their  conversion  more  difficult  if  not  desperate.  (2) 
To  exercise  a  means  appointed  of  God  for  their  con- 
version, or  the  communication  of  saving  grace  unto 
them.'^i 

This  second  advantage  from  the  use  of  the  means 
of  grace,  viz.  Spiritual  good,  being  the  main  point  in 
the  discussion,  Hemmenway  argues  it  at  length.  Only 
an  outline  of  his  presentation  of  the  case  ^Yi\l  be 
given.  He  maintains  that  the  Scriptures  show  that 
some  are  more  likely  to  attain  acceptance  with  God 
than  others,  and  those  in  the  more  favorable  state  are 
those  who  attend  on  the  means  of  grace.  Those  who 
resist  the  influences  of  God's  Spirit  are  those  who  are 
given  up  to  hardness  of  heart.  "For  this  cause  God 
shall  send  them  strong  delusions,  that  they  should 
believe  a  lie,  that  they  might  all  be  damned  who  be- 
lieved not  the  truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unright- 
eousness."     The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  preparatory 

1.    Sermons,  p.  61. 


190  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

to  conversion,  renders  the  condition  of  some  more 
hopeful  than  that  of  others,  and  the  truth  is  com- 
monly made  an  instrument  in  this  work.  The  Holy 
Spirit  sends  the  Gospel  call  to  some,  while  passing 
by  others,  the  Holy  Spirit  wakens  the  attention  of 
some  to  the  call,  the  Holy  Spirit  illuminates  some 
minds  by  a  common  doctrinal  understanding  and  be- 
lief of  the  truth.  Because  of  this  illumination  a  dis- 
quieting sense  of  guilt  and  fear  of  punishment  are 
awakened  accompanied  by  anxious  thoughts  and  de- 
sires to  obtain  pardon  and  deliverance.  Such  senti- 
ments move  the  mind  to  inward  purposes  and  modify 
the  outward  conduct. 

That  this  work  is  preparatory  to  regeneration  he 
proves  in  this  way.  It  is,  according  to  our  human 
apprehensions,  more  fit  that  those  be  regenerated 
who  know  their  lost  condition  and  feel  their  need  of 
pardon  ;  God  ordinarily  gives  the  new  heart  only  to 
those  who  are  prepared  for  it  by  attention  to  the 
means  of  grace ;  common  Christian  experience  shows 
that  regeneration  has  taken  place  in  connection  with 
endeavors  in  response  to  convictions  of  truth  effected 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  holds  that  those  who  care- 
fully make  use  of  the  means  of  grace  approach  more 
and  more  to  the  position  of  those  who  are  pleasing 
to  God,  and  are  finally  endowed,  or  may  confidently 
expect  to  be  endowed,  with  regenerating  grace.  The 
following  extract  presents  the  conclusion  to  wliich  he 
comes : 

^^The  divine  command  then,  considered  in  the 
relation  it  bears  to  the  revelation  of  mercy,  and  the 
end  for  which  it  is  given,  not  only  lays  an  obliga- 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  191 

tion  of  obedience  upon  the  conscience  of  every  one 
who  hears  the  call  of  the  gospel,  but  also  carries  an 
encouraging  motive  to  endeavors  of  obedience,  ante- 
cedent to  that  faith  in  Christ,  with  which  justification 
is  connected  by  the  divine  promise.  And  there  is, 
therefore,  encouragement  to  the  unregenerate  to  labor 
for  the  meat  which  endureth  to  everlasting  life,  in 
such  a  manner  as  they  can,  though  they  are  morally 
unable  to  do  so  in  the  manner  they  ought.  Their 
endeavors  in  a  way  of  attendance  to  prescribed  duties, 
however  defective  and  unholy,  have,  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  God,  a  good  tendency,  and  are  wtII  adapted 
to  subserve  those  ends  and  purposes  for  which  they 
are  designed  and  required  by  God.  Indeed  were  it 
necessary  that  those  who  obtain  eternal  life  should 
all  work  their  way  to  it  by  perfect  personal  obe- 
dience to  the  law,  or  were  any  holy  qualifications 
requisite  to  render  us  worthy  objects  of  divine  mercy, 
no  endeavors  of  the  unregenerate  would  avail  for  any 
such  purpose."^ 

The  most  valuable  achievement  of  Hopkinsianism, 
in  the  view  of  its  advocates,  is  the  controverting  of 
the  above  noticed  doctrines  of  the  Moderate  Calvin- 
ists  concerning  the  doings  of  the  unregenerate.  They 
seem  to  have  had  no  hesitation  in  asserting  that  the 
refutation  was  triumphant.  The  arguments  on  this 
side  of  the  question  vdW  be  more  readily  appre- 
hended if  we  notice  the  psychological  position  on 
which  it  is  based  in  contrast  with  that  of  the  Old 
Calvinists  already  spoken  of.  They  knew  nothing 
of  next  power.  They  had  no  theory  of  powers 
stored  up  in  the  soul  to  be  called  out  by  appeals  to 
the  sensibilities  or  the   reason — powers  competent  to 

1.    Sermons,  p.  163. 


192  NEW   ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

act  within  a  range  by  methods  at  the  possessor's 
command,  but  incompetent  to  go  beyond  their  range 
except  by  external  aid.  They  knew  of  nothing 
intervening  between  the  will  of  man  and  the  will  of 
God.  Dr.  Emmons  is  perfectly  explicit  on  this 
point.  He  held  that  the  soul  is  known  only  as 
active,  and  that  its  activity  is  dependent  on  a  divine 
operation.  Dr.  Hopkins  did  not  state  this  view  so 
distinctly,  but  implied  it,  was  understood  by  others 
to  imply  it,  and  did  clearly  in  some  places  teach 
Emmonsism,  as  Professor  Park  has  remarked  in  his 
"  Memoirs  of  Hopkins,"  ^  To  Hemmenway's 
arguing  for  a  principle  of  action,  affirming  that 
power  has  relation  to  acts,  and  to  talk  othermse 
is  unintelligible  jargon,  Hopkins  replies: 

*^  I  refer  him  and  the  reader  to  Mr.  West's  late 
essay  on  Moral  Agency,  Sec.  2.  Perhaps  when  he 
has  well  considered  this  he  will  give  his  own  '  talk 
of  power '  as  hard  an  epithet  as  he  has  here  used."  ^ 

West  says,  in  the  section  referred  to,  that  "  Pow- 
er, strictly  speaking,  is  no  more  than  a  law  of  con- 
stant divine  operation.  It  is  nothing  more  than  a 
divine  constitution,  or  an  established  connection 
between  human  volitions  and  certain  external  events."  ^ 
Again,  he  says:  ^'Man  is  not  possessed  of  any 
independent  power  for  anything."  *  JJe  says 
also,  ^'  The  divine  constitution  of  things,  by  which 
external  events  are  connected  with  our  volitions, 
is  all  that  can  be  properly  meant  by  the  terms  Habit 
and    Temper     used     to    express    anything    previous 

1.    p.  200.  2.    Ill,  p.  134.  n. 

3.    Moral  Agency,  Sec.  2,  p.  48.  4.    Ibid.,  p,  54. 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  I93 

to  voluntary  exertion  or  inclination,  and  distinct  from 
it."  ^  Hopkins  was  not  as  pronounced  in  his 
view  as  West  and  Emmons,  but  still  agreed  \\dth 
them.      He  says : 

^^It  is  difficult,  and  perhaps  impossible,  to  form 
any  distinct  and  clear  idea  of  that  in  the  mind  or 
heart  which  is  antecedent  to  all  thought  and  exercise 
of  the  will  or  action,  which  we  call  principle,  taste, 
temper,  disposition,  habit,  by  which  we  mean  nothing 
properly  active,  but  that  from  which  right  exercise 
of  the  will  or  action  springs,  as  the  reason  and 
foundation  of  it,  and  without  which  there  could  have 
been  no  such  exercise.  Perhaps  the  real  truth  of 
the  matter,  when  examined  with  true,  philosophic, 
metaphysical  strictness,  will  appear  to  be  this:  that 
what  we  call  principle,  disposition,  or  frame  of  mind, 
which  is  antecedent  to  all  right  exercise  of  the  heart, 
and  is  the  foundation  and  reason  of  it,  is  wholly  to 
be  resolved  into  divine  constitution,  or  law  of  nature"  ^ 

Hopkinsians,  therefore,  find  all  sin  and  all  holi- 
ness in  exercise,  not  in  anything  that  goes  before  or 
follows  after.  In  urging  religious  duties,  therefore, 
upon  men,  they  urge  action,  and  the  right  action ; 
urge  it  as  the  one  and  only  thing  to  be  performed — 
performed  immediately.  They  reject  all  indirect 
means  of  leading  men  to  the  performance  of  religious 
duties,  such  as  cultivating  higher  moral  sentiments 
and  developing  the  better  elements  of  character,  but 
urge  instant  repentance  with  no  consideration  of 
means,  that  is,  of  a  medium  to  be  brought  into  use 
between  the  command  and  obedience  to  the  command. 
Hopkinsianism  says  to  the   sinner,  You  are   not  be- 

1.    Moral  Agency,  Sec.  2,  p.  54.  2.    Ill,  p.  553  n. 


194         NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

coming  better  but  worse,  while  you  contemplate  the 
truths  of  Christianity  and  spend  your  time  in  thought 
about  the  course  you  ought  to  take.  You  are  not 
improving  in  moral  character  when,  in  view  of  the 
claims  of  God,  you  renounce  evil  habits,  as  profane- 
ness  and  intemperance,  and  adopt  new  habits,  as 
prayer  and  attendance  upon  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel.  In  all  this  you  are  sinning  against  increased 
light  and  falling  into  a  state  of  increased  guilt.  It 
says  to  the  sinner,  do  not  listen  to  those  teachers 
who  urge  you  to  think  upon  your  ways  and  wait 
upon  God  for  his  interposition  and  assistance.  Such 
teachers  are  your  enemies — or  mistaken  friends ; 
their  words  are  misleading  and  endanger  the  soul. 
Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  such  teachers 
incur  the  guilt  of  urging  men  to  do  evil  that  good 
may  come.  Dr.  Hopkins  does  not  sympathize  with 
this  extreme  view,  as  we  shall  see, — ^^vith  what  con- 
sistency may  be  questioned. 

In  urging  immediate  repentance  Hopkinsianism 
adheres  to  its  own  psychology,  for  it  knows  nothing 
of  next  power,  or  habit,  or  principle,  but  teaches  a 
divine  co-operation,  and  says  to  all  the  unregenerate. 
You  have  full  power  to  repent,  it  is  as  easy  to  per- 
form that  act  as  to  perform  any  other.  All  moral 
acts  are  equally  simple  and  direct.  It  has  also  a 
theological  argument  for  the  possibility  of  immediate 
repentance.  God  requires  it,  and  he  never  requires 
an  impossibility.  By  confession  of  all,  repentance  is 
a  present  duty,  it  must,  therefore,  be  possible,  for 
every  man's  ability  is  commensurate  with  his  obli- 
gation. 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  195 

Hopkinsianism,  as  compelled  by  its  exercise  scheme, 
rejected  the  idea  of  diiferent  degrees  of  moral  worth, 
according  as  different  faculties  are  developed.  If 
one  is  grateful  for  favors,  quick  to  recognize  good  in- 
tentions in  others,  generous  in  aiding  the  needy,  of 
ready  sympathy  with  those  in  distress,  perfectly  up- 
right in  dealing  with  men,  the  advocates  of  the  taste 
scheme  are  able  to  say  that  he  has  some  good  qual- 
ities though  he  may  not  be  devoted  to  the  service  of 
God,  but  the  Hopkinsians  reject  these  itemized  traits 
from  a  place  in  one's  moral  character.  They  make 
the  moral  character  a  unit,  wholly  a  development  of 
self-love  or  of  benevolence.  There  is  no  virtue  but 
that  which  comes  from  love  of  being  in  general, 
whatever  issues  from  self-love  is  sin.  All  motives 
that  prompt  to  moral  action  are  resolvable  into  one 
or  other  of  these  two  fundamental  elements  of  char- 
acter. The  man  who  gratifies  liimself  by  giving  to 
the  poor  is  as  bad  as  the  man  who  gratifies  himself 
by  oppressing  them.  President  Finney,  who  accepted 
logical  conclusions  however  distasteful,  was  accus- 
tomed to  say  that  every  man  in  impenitence  is  as 
bad  as  he  can  be.  Whether  the  incendiary  and  thief 
is  worse  than  the  founder  of  colleges  and  the  builder 
of  churches,  depends  on  his  ability ;  if  he  knows  more 
he  is  worse,  otherwise  not. 

The  argument  in  favor  of  these  positions  has  been 
presented  by  several  writers,  but  they  are  essentially 
the  same  in  each.  Dr.  Smalley  insisted  that  God 
must  require  every  man  to  do  his  full  duty,  therefore 
a  partial  performance  could  not  in  any  way  be  obed- 
ience to  a   command   of  God.      Dr.  Bellamy    in   his 


196  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

extended  reply  to  Dr.  Moses  Mather,  made  this  the 
decisive  consideration,  that  God  has  not  entered  into 
any  graceless  covenant  Avith  men.  By  this  succinct 
phrase  he  means  that  God  promises  salvation  to  those 
who  enter  into  covenant  with  him  and  makes  no 
promises  based  on  anything  short  of  this.  He  has 
not  proposed  one  covenant  to  impenitent  men  prom- 
ising a  certain  degree  of  favor  for  a  certain  degree 
of  reform,  and  then  a  covenant  with  the  promise  of 
saving  grace  if  the  reform  is  carried  forward  to  true 
penitence,  but  stops  with  nothing  short  of  full  grace 
for  a  full  acceptance  of  the  terms  of  salvation.  Dr. 
Hopkins  has  presented  his  views  Avith  a  somewhat 
wider  range  of  thought  than  the  above-named  authors, 
and  we  will  accept  his  arguments  as  representative 
of  all.  He  replies  in  this  way  to  Dr.  Mayhew,  who 
held  that  an  impenitent  man  earnestly  desiring  sal- 
vation, would  secure  it  by  persevering  in  his  endeavors. 

"If  it  can  be  proved  that  the  doctor's  unregen- 
erate  sinner  is  a  creature  of  his  own  fancy,  a  kind 
of  monster,  an  enemy  to  God,  dressed  up  in  the  attire 
of  a  saint,  a  contradiction  almost  in  terms,  then  all 
he  has  said  and  attempted  to  prove  of  such  a  one  is 
really  nothing  to  the  purpose.^ 

He  grants  that  unregenerate  sinners  may  desire 
deliverance  from  natural  evil,  may  desire  safety  and 
happiness  under  a  conviction  that  they  are  to  be 
attained  only  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  yet  he  holds 
that  they  have  no  desire  of  salvation. 

"  It  is  but  to  delude  sinners,  to  represent  to  them 
that  their  concern  and  desires  of  this   kind   are   the 

1.    Ill,  p.  202. 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  I97 

least  evidence  that  their  hearts  are  a  whit  nearer  a 
true  submission  to  Christ,  or  a  real  acceptance  of  sal- 
vation as  offered  by  him,  or  that  there  is  the  less 
opposition  to  the  gospel  in  their  hearts/' ^ 

He  denies  that  the  unregenerate  sincerely  pray 
for  the  divine  blessing. 

"  Are  not  all  the  exercises  of  an  impenitent  rebel- 
lious heart  impenitent  rebellious  exercises?  And  does 
not  the  old  heart  perfectly  hate  and  oppose  the  new 
heart?  What  sincerity  and  heartiness,  then,  is  there 
in  asking  for  a  new  heart  with  a  heart  so  perfectly 
opposite  to  the  thing  asked  for  ? ''  ^ 

He  denies  that  a  person  under  conviction  of  sin, 
desiring  to  be  delivered  from  its  consequences,  for- 
saking evil  habits,  yet  not  truly  penitent,  is  in  any 
degree  improved  in  his  moral  character. 

"'The  sinner,  however  exercised  and  concerned  he 
is  about  himself,  and  whatever  pains  he  takes  to  bet- 
ter his  case,  and  obtain  deliverance,  if  still  he  does 
not  actually  accept  salvation,  does  refuse  so  to  do 
from  the  fixed  opposition  of  his  heart  to  the  salva- 
tion offered ;  which  opposition  of  heart  is  of  the  same 
nature  and  kind  with  that  of  the  secure  sinner,  and 
is  really  as  voluntary,  and  every  way  as  inexcusable, 
and  indeed  is  more  apparent,  and  exercises  itself  in 
a  stronger  manner  than  that  of  the  secure  sinner;  as 
the  former  actually  resists  more  light  and  conviction 
of  conscience  than  the  secure  sinner.''^ 

In  replying  to  Dr.  Hemmenway,  he  puts  the  case 
more  vigorously,  thus : 

"The  sinner,  in  all  his  exertions  under  awaken- 
ings and  convictions  of  conscience,  while  under  the 
dominion  of  Satan,  is  more  like  a  Vvild  bull  in  a  net 

1.    Ill,  p.  205.  2.    Ill,  p.  230.  3.    Ill,  p.  248. 


198  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

than  a  submissive,  obedient  child ;  and  would  get  out 
of  the  hands  of  God  if  he  could,  and  all  his  strivings 
are  really  strivings  against  God,  as  they  are  utterly 
opposed  to  submission  to  him ;  like  the  exertions  of 
a  wild  beast,  untamed,  unsubdued,  in  the  hands  of 
him  who  is  taking  methods  to  bring  him  to  sub- 
mission.^' ^ 

Dr.  Hopkins  considered  that  a  bare  statement  of 
his  position  carried  with  it  sufficient  evidence  of  its 
soundness  and  validity.  He  has,  however,  presented 
positive  arguments  in  its  favor.  He  gives  large 
space  to  the  criticism  of  his  opponents'  arguments 
and  to  the  answering  of  objections  in  which  he  illus- 
trates forcibly  his  own  views,  but  in  which  he  adds 
nothing  material  to  his  direct  arguments.  He  also 
gives  a  good  deal  of  space  to  Scripture  interpreta- 
tions, but  these  may  be  passed  by,  as  he  generally 
attempts  to  show  that  the  Bible  teachings  are  con- 
sistent with  his  scheme  of  doctrine,  rather  than  that 
they  inculcate  it.  For  example,  he  considers  Dr. 
Mayhew's  text :  "  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait 
gate,''  etc.,  to  be  an  address  to  those  already  regen- 
erate, urging  them  to  persevere  in  the  course  which 
they  have  adopted.  He  says  that  Christ  loved  the 
young  man  who  had  kept  the  commandments  from 
his  youth,  because  his  claim  was  an  expression  of 
most  odious  ignorance.  Christ  looked  on  him  as  a 
"poor,  ignorant,  stupid,  proud  enemy  to  God.  This 
excited  in  him  the  love  of  pity  and  benevolence 
toward  him."'^ 

We  take  up  then  his  positive  arguments  in  favor 
of  his  position,  and  first  those  that  are   given   in   his 

1.    Ill,  p.  123.  2.    Ill,  p.  3T6. 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  199 

criticism  of  Dr.  Mayhew's  sermons.  His  position  is : 
there  are  no  promises  addressed  to  the  impenitent, 
God  has  not  said  to  the  unregenerate,  if  they  will, 
remaining  unregenerate,  do  this  and  that,  he  will  bring 
them  out  of  their  unregenerate  state  and  make  them 
heirs  of  salvation. 

1.  God  could  not  do  this,  for  all  the  unregen- 
erate are  condemned  already,  and  the  wrath  of  God 
abides  upon  them. 

"To  be  condemned  and  under  God's  wrath,  and 
to  be  interested  in  the  promises  of  God's  favor  and 
eternal  life  at  the  same  time,  is  a  contradiction 
and  absolutely  impossible."  ^ 

He  argues  the  same  from  the  Scriptures  and  cites 
among  other  passages,  Eom.  8  :1,  4,  6,  9,  13. 

2.  To  suppose  there  are  promises  of  salvation  to  the 
doings  of  the  unregenerate,  is  to  make  their  doings 
the  condition  of  salvation,  and  not  faith  or  repent- 
ance, or,  indeed,  anything  else  which  the  Scriptures 
represent  as  such  condition. 

3.  The  unregenerate  "  do,  with  their  whole  hearts 
oppose  the  way  of  salvation  by  Christ,  and  reject  the 
salvation  offered  by  him.'' 

4.  Salvation  is  offered  to  all  on  the  lowest  pos- 
sible terms  when  it  is  offered  to  those  who  truly  ask 
for  it  and  accept  it  in  its  wholeness.  The  unregen- 
erate never  come  up  to  these  terms,  therefore  salva- 
tion is  never  offered  them. 

5.  To  offer  salvation  to  the  unregenerate  for  any 
thing  they  do  while  such  would  overthrow   the   gos- 

1.    III.  p.  238. 


200        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

pel.  Sinners  are  saved  by  faith  in  the  Mediator. 
To  offer  pardon  to  those  who  are  still  enemies  to  the 
Mediator,  who  oppose  and  reject  him,  would  dishonor 
him,  indeed  make  him  of  no  account. 

These  are  the  arguments  by  which  Hopkins  sus- 
tains his  position.  He  adds  in  replying  to  his  oppo- 
nent these  two  remarks :  If  promises  were  made  to 
the  unregenerate  they  would  be  of  little  practical 
value,  for  those  to  whom  they  were  made  could  never 
know  whether  they  had  come  to  the  requisite  degree 
of  struggle  for  salvation  to  meet  the  condition ;  and 
if  they  should  reach  the  requisite  degree,  they  could 
never  be  sure  of  persevering,  and  so  could  never  be 
sure  of  final  salvation. 

His  reply  to  Mr.  Mills,  who,  he  said,  took  essen- 
tially the  same  ground  with  Dr.  Mayhew,  occupies 
more  than  two  hundred  pages  in  the  Boston  Tract 
Society's  edition  of  his  works,  yet  his  positive  argu- 
ments may  be  presented  in  brief  space.  He  aims  to 
establish  two  positions :  1 .  The  unregenerate  are 
more  sinful  in  a  state  of  awakening  than  in  a  state 
of  stupidity.  2.  The  unregenerate  do  not  comply 
with  any  divine  command. 

In  discussing  the  first  point  he  calls  attention  to 
this  principle :  ^'  The  vileness  and  guilt  of  sin  does 
chiefly  and  principally  consist  in  its  being  committed 
against  God.''  The  intensity  of  his  conviction  on 
this  point  may  be  exhibited  by  a  brief  quotation : 

"If  a  person  should  turn  enemy  to  the  whole 
human  race,  and  with  relentless  hatred,  rage,  and 
thirst  for  blood,  should  murder  his  own  parents,  and 
all  his  relations  and  friends,  in  the  most  cruel  man- 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  201 

ner  imaginable ;  and  should  he  have  it  in  his  power, 
and  go  on  to  murder  and  destroy  a  whole  nation; 
and  should  he  proceed  and  actually  destroy  every 
one  of  the  human  race  on  earth;  yea,  put  an  utter 
end  to  the  whole  creation,  and  then  lay  violent 
hands  on  himself  and  put  an  end  to  his  own  life ; 
and  could  this  be  done  and  not  imply  any  rebellion 
against  God  or  opposition  to  him,  but  be  consistent 
with  perfect  love  to  him,  the  crime  he  v/ould  be 
guilty  of  in  all  this  would  be  nothing  in  comparison 
wdth  the  least  degree  of  opposition  and  disrespect  to 
God/'  1 

He  then  affirms  that  sin  which  is  directly  and 
immediately  in  opposition  to  God,  is  immensely  more 
heinous  than  that  which  is  indirectly  opposed  to  him. 
This  discloses  to  us  the  guilt  of  the  awakened  sinner. 
His  mind  is  drawn  away  from  worldly  considera- 
tions, he  is  brought  face  to  face  with  God,  and  his 
refusal  to  submit  to  him  becomes  open  and  positive 
rebellion.  He  may  at  the  same  time  reform  his 
outward  life  by  renouncing  evil  habits,  but  this  is 
merely  from  self-love — the  same  self-love  that  sus- 
tains him  in  opposition  to  God.      Hence  he  concludes : 

"The  difference  appears  to  me  so  great,  and  the 
av/akened,  convinced  sinner  to  be  so  much  more 
guilty  and  vile  than  he  was  or  could  be  in  a  state 
of  security,  that  when  the  matter  is  perfectly  stated, 
I  see  not  how  any  can  be  at  a  loss  about  it.''  ^ 

The  second  point,  that  sinners  while  unregenerate 
comply  with  no  command  of  God,  Dr.  Hopkins 
argues  from  the   principle  that  all   obedience  to  God 

1.    Ill,  p.  804.  2.    Ill,  p.  319. 


202       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

is  love,  that  there  is  no  virtue  but  love.  He  main- 
tains that  since  the  impenitent  man  loves  neither 
God  nor  his  neighbor,  he  discharges  no  duty. 
Actions  prompted  by  conscience  or  by  self-love  have 
no  true  love  in  them,  and  therefore  are  sinful.  The 
prayers  of  the  wicked  are  sinful,  therefore  God  does 
not  command  them,  and  in  prayer  they  obey  no 
command. 

^^  If  God  commands  the  unregenerate  to  do  that 
which  they  may  do  in  a  state  of  rebellion,  and  while 
they  are  with  all  their  hearts  opposing  him  and  in 
the  exercise  of  perfect  enmity  against  him,  I  see  not 
why  this  is  not  commanding  sin  and  rebellion,  and 
making  this  their  duty.^'  ^ 

The  debate  with  Mr.  Hemmenway  brings  out 
more  of  subtle  thought  and  discriminating  statements 
than  any  other,  but  presents  no  new  theological 
views.  The  differences  of  doctrine  in  this  discussion 
were  due  to  diiferent  ideas  of  man's  intellectual  en- 
dowment, and  if  the  contention  had  been  over  intel- 
lectual philosophy  it  might  have  been  as  profitable 
and  with  less  irritation.  Mr.  Hemmenway  held  to 
the  taste  scheme.  He  believed  that  the  soul  is 
endowed  with  diiferent  susceptibilities  which  are 
roused  to  activity  by  appropriate  motives.  He 
believed  that  personal  attaclnnents,  admiration,  pity, 
gratitude  and  generosity  were  sentiments  that  could 
be  directly  awakened  by  the  events  of  one's  expe- 
rience, and  might  lead  to  corresponding  deeds. 
These  deeds  might   be   useful,  helpful,  praiseworthy, 

I.    Ill,  p.  427. 


CALVINISM  AND  HOPKINSIANISM.  203 

or  might  be  un^vise  and  deleterious.  Especially  he 
held  that  self-love,  regard  for  one's  own  interests,  is 
a  principle  to  which  appeal  may  be  made  with  good 
results.  It  is  to  be  restrained  when  it  leads  to 
injustice  towards  others,  but  as  a  prompting  to 
sobriety,  uprightness  and  a  reputable  life,  it  is  to  be 
valued  and  cherished.  His  view  was  that  of  President 
Edwards,  who,  after  explaining  that  it  is  natural  and 
not  a  result  of  the  fall,  says : 

"  The  change  that  takes  place  in  man  when  he  is 
converted  and  sanctified,  is  not  that  his  love  for 
happiness  is  diminished,  but  only  that  it  is  regulated 
with  respect  to  its  exercise  and  influence,  and  the 
courses  and  objects  it  leads  to.''  ^ 

Edwards  had  before  shown  that  self-love  is  love  of 
happiness  and,  absolutely  considered,  is  never  too 
high  in  degree.  Mr.  Hemmenway  believed  that  all 
these  susceptibilities  opened  the  way  for  persuading 
men  to  courses  of  conduct  on  which  they  might  not 
enter  without  the  persuasion. 

Dr.  Hopkins  rejected  all  this  philosophy  and  held 
that  the  impenitent  perform  no  duty.  His  reply  to 
Hemmenway  is  all  evolved  from  two  positions ;  that 
there  is  no  approach  to  a  holy  life  through  any  deeds 
performed  in  the  impenitent  state,  and  that  all  obe- 
dience to  God  is  through  love  of  being  in  general,  or 
through  disinterested  benevolence.  Hopkins  consid- 
ered that  he  had  much  the  advantage  of  Hemmenway 
at  this  point.  The  latter  admits  that  immediate  repent- 
ance is  required,  while  he  justifies  a  preparatory  work. 

1.    Christian  Love,  p.  230. 


204       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

He  says  this  is  "  the  Gordian  knot  in  revealed 
religion/'  that  perfect  holiness  is  required  of  those 
born  in  a  state  of  corruption.  Hopkins  says  this  is 
a  mystery  of  his  own  making.  Men  are  blamed 
only  for  doing  what  their  own  consciences  condemn, 
when  properly  awakened.  '^Persons  of  the  lowest 
capacity,  and  children  may  understand  it,  condemn 
themselves,  and  repent."  ^ 

The  chief  weapon  in  his  opposition  to  Hemmen- 
way  is  the  principle  that  no  duty  is  performed  except 
through  love  to  being  in  general.  Deeds  prompted 
by  pity,  generosity  or  gratitude  are  of  no  account,  as 
thus  prompted,  in  morals.  Their  worth  is  determined 
by  the  disinterested  benevolence  in  them.  Self-love  is 
sinful  in  itself,  the  least  degree  is  the  source  of 
heinous  guilt,  except  it  come  through  universal 
love.  The  love  that  falls  to  one's  share  as  a  part 
of  the  whole  may  be  justly  appropriated,  one  should 
exercise  that  towards  himself;  but  direct  self-love  is 
always  sinful — is  the  essence  of  sin.  Consequently 
men  are  not  the  better  but  the  worse  for  seeking 
their  own  advantage  by  using  the  means  of  grace. 
Professor  Park  quotes  from  Dr.  William  Patten, 
from  1781  to  1833  pastor  of  the  Second  Congrega- 
tional Church  in  Newport,  the  following : 

"This  distinction  of  the  new  love  which  one  is 
brought  to  exercise  for  himself  in  regeneration,  Mr. 
H.  (Hopkins)  considered  as  having  occurred  to  him 
without  meeting  with  it  in  any  commentator,  and  as 
more  original  in  this  sense  than  any  other  doctrine 
of  his  system.'^  ^ 

1.    Ill,  p.  135,  2.    Hopkins'  Works,  I,  p.  51. 


PEACTICAL  QUESTIONS.  205 

II. 
PRACTICAL    QUESTIONS. 

Whether  Hopkins  had  so  fully  the  advantage  in 
this  discussion  as  he  supposed,  is  open  to  question. 
He  did,  without  doubt,  state  many  important  truths 
and  infuse  many  valuable  sentiments  into  the  minds 
of  his  fellow  ministers,  but  these  were  for  the  most 
part  consistent  with  the  views  of  his  opponents.  If 
he  at  times  found  them  accepting  practical  doctrines 
that  needed  modification,  they  were  able  in  return  to 
ask  him  some  puzzling  questions.  If  the  public 
sentiment  has  justified  him  in  maintaining,  as  Pro- 
fessor Park  says  he  did,  the  air  of  a  victor,  it  may 
be  questioned  whether  the  public  sentiment  is  based 
on  a  careful  reading  of  all  his  expositions  and  argu- 
mentations. A  few  of  his  replies  to  the  inquiries 
of  his  opponents  will   illustrate  this  point. 

Mr.  Hemmenway  asked,  what  estimate  should  be 
put  upon  the  deeds  of  unregenerate  men  which  are 
intended  to  be  useful  and  which  call  forth  our  appro- 
bation, if  every  deed  not  prompted  by  the  love  of 
being  in  general  is  selfish?  Men  like  President 
Stiles  and  Mr.  Hart,  of  Saybrook,  were  at  loss  as 
to  the  instructions  Hopkinsians  would  give  the  im- 
penitent, if  attention  to  the  means  of  grace  would 
simply  increase  their  guilt.  The  views  of  Dr.  Hop- 
kins upon  these  points  may  be  easily  drawn  from 
his  works  ;  some  of  the  questions  suggested  he  has 
answered  directly  ;  for  instance,  it  is  asked,  how 
could  God  have  granted  favors  to  wicked  men  like 
Ahab,  Jehu,  the   Ninevites,  because  of  their  conduct 


206  NEW  ENGlvAND  THEOLOGY. 

on  certain  occasions,  if  he  looks  with  no  kind  of 
approbation  upon  any  of  the  deeds  of  such  men  ? 
This  is  a  query  urged  by  both  Mr.  Mills  and  Mr. 
Hemmenway.  Dr.  Hopkins  replies  that  God  may 
grant  the  unregenerate  favors,  but  not  because  of 
any  work  they  perform,  while  they  are  still  recog- 
nized as  impenitent.  In  the  cases  cited  God  did 
not  deal  with  the  men  as  the  searcher  of  hearts,  but 
"had  respect  to  their  present  external  appearance, 
profession  and  conduct,  i.  e.,  as  if  they  really  were 
what  they  professed  to  be,  true  penitents.'^  >i<  >i<  ^i^ 
"God,  in  treating  them,  not  as  the  searcher  of 
hearts,  but  according  to  their  visible  profession  and 
conduct,  had  respect  to  them,  and  expressed  his 
approbation  of  them,  considered  as  interested  in  the 
atonement,  and  as  his  servants  truly  devoted  to  him, 
which  was  true,  if  their  hearts  were  answerable  to 
their  external  appearance.  Since  he  really  accepts 
and  approves  of  all  true  penitents,  purely  for  Christ's 
sake,  he  visibly  approved  of  them  who  were  visibly 
penitents,  and  devoted  to  him,  or  appeared  to  be 
interested  in  the  atonement.'^  ^ 

If  God,  searching  the  heart,  had  considered  these 
men  as  his  enemies,  as  having  no  connection  with 
Christ,  and  yet  had  bestowed  favors  upon  them  be- 
cause of  their  goodness,  he  might  have  proceeded  to 
bestow  the  highest  blessings  and  have  justified  them 
because  of  their  works.  This  would  destroy  the 
gospel  and  show  that  Christ  died  in  vain. 

"The  necessity  of  Christ's  atonement  is  grounded 
in  man's  being  in  such  a  state  by  sin  that  he  cannot 

1.     Ill,  pp.  120,  131, 


PKACTICAL  QUESTIONS.  207 

have  God's  approbation  and  favorable  notice,  on 
account  of  anything  he  can  do,  even  though  he  should 
become  perfectly  holy/'  ^ 

The  question  may  be  asked,  should  we  entertain 
the  feeling  of  gratitude  towards  the  unregenerate  ? 
If  all  their  acts  are  prompted  by  self-love  and  are 
therefore  selfish,  their  seeming  kindnesses  lay  us  under 
no  obligation  of  gratitude.  To  this  assertion  of  Mr. 
Hemmenway,  Dr.  Hopkins  makes  two  replies.  (1) 
If  there  is  an  appearance  of  kindness,  it  ought  to 
waken  our  gratitude.  If  one  who  is  unregenerate 
does  us  an  apparent  kindness  and  yet  has  towards  us 
no  sentiment  of  disinterested  benevolence,  and  so  does 
us  no  real  kindness,  yet  we  ought  to  exercise  grati- 
tude towards  him  because  the  appearance  of  good 
will  affects  the  mind  more  than  the  reasoning  process 
which  reaches  the  conclusion  that  kindness  is  wanting. 
(2)  The  unregenerate  never  exercise  gratitude  for 
favors,  because  they  are  selfish  themselves,  and  have 
no  appreciation  of  disinterested  good  will.  The  re- 
generate are  grateful  to  God  for  all  the  favors  they 
receive  from  men,  and  will  love  them  whether  they 
are  actuated  J)y  self-love  or  benevolence.  ^ 

The  Hopkinsians  affirm  that  the  only  love  exer- 
cised by  the  unregenerate  is  self-love.  Their  oppo- 
nents deny  this.  Dr.  Hopkins'  statement  of  the  case 
presents  each  side  sufficiently. 

"  Mr.  Hemmenway  further  says,  '  that  love  the  un- 
regenerate have  sometimes  to  others  cannot  possibly 
be    educed  from   self-love.      It   is    evident   that   the 

1.    Ill,  p.  120.  2.    Ill,  p,  114. 


208       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

iinregenerate  have  sometimes  such  a  love  to  others  as 
causes  them  to  have  a  real  pleasure  in,  and  concern 
for,  their  welfare,  separate  from  all  hopes  or  prospects 
of  being  benefited  by  them ;  which  would  not  be  if 
they  loved  others  only  for  their  o^vn  sakes,  or  wholly 
from  self-love.'  He  instances  in  one  dying,  and  yet 
manifesting  concern  for  the  welfare  of  his  friends 
after  he  is  dead,  which  can  be  of  no  benefit  to  him." 

Answer.  —  "There  is  not  the  least  difficulty  in 
accounting  for  this  from  self-love.  Self-love  will 
lead  men  to  love  others  and  wish  them  well  for  the 
good  they  have  done  to  them,  as  well  as  for  the  good 
they  e:o)ect  they  will  do  to  them.  Therefore  this 
will  influence  a  man  to  wish  well  to  another  who  has 
been,  and  is  now,  his  friend,  though  because  he  is  now 
going  out  of  the  world,  he  does  not  expect  to  receive 
any  further  benefit  from  him.  Self-love  does  in  a 
sense  unite  us  to  them  who  love  us,  and  do  us  good, 
and  leads  us  by  a  necessary  association  of  ideas  to 
look  on  them  as  belonging  to  us,  and  as  part  of  our- 
selves. Hence  there  is  a  desire  in  selfish  men,  which 
arises  from  self-love,  to  exist  after  they  are  dead,  in 
their  surviving  friends  or  relatives,  wnich  they  look 
upon  in  some  sense  as  themselves.  And  hence  they 
are  disposed  to  wish  and  provide  for  their  existence 
and  comfort  after  they  themselves  shall  be  dead,  for 
the  same  reason  they  would  do  this  for  themselves, 
if  they  were  to  live,  viz.,  from  love  to  themselves."^ 

"  It  is  asked ;  if  the  impenitent  increase  their  guilt 
by  attention  to  the  means  of  grace,  how  shall  they 
be  addressed  by  those  who  would  lead  them  to  a 
holy  life?  The  Hopkinsian  reply  is,  preach  imme- 
diate repentance — repentance  without  means.  The 
founder   of  the  system,  after  emphatically  rejecting 

1.    Ill,  p.  115. 


PKACTICAL  QUESTIONS.  209 

their  plea  of  inability  to   help   themselves,   addresses 
them  thus : 

"  It  is  your  indispensable  duty,  your  highest  inter- 
est, immediately  to  repent,  believe  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  give  yourselves  up  to 
God.  Nothing  can  be  the  least  excuse  for  your 
neglecting  it  one  minute ;  you  have  all  the  oppor- 
tunity and  advantage  you  can  desire;  and  motives 
are  set  before  you  which  are,  I  may  say,  infinitely 
weighty  and  forcible.  And  if  divine,  eternal  ven- 
geance should  fall  on  your  heads  immediately,  for 
the  hardness  of  your  hearts  and  continued  rebellion 
in  these  circumstances,  God  will  be  just,  and  you 
most  justly  miserable  forever.  And  how  soon  this 
will  be  your  case,  you  know  not.  It  is  certain 
this  will  come  upon  you  soon,  unless  you  wake  up 
and  attend  to  your  case  and  fly  to  the  only  refuge.^'  ^ 

It  is  asked,  does  preaching  immediate  repentance 
bring  men  to  God  more  effectually  than  commending 
the  use  of  means  ?  We  derive  a  negative  reply  from 
the  following,  after  remarking  that  the  need  of  regen- 
eration rises  from  the  total  corruption  of  man's  heart, 
Hopkins  says: 

"If  he  is  so  far  sunk  in  corruption  that  he  has 
not  naturally  the  least  degree  of  aisposition  to  that 
which  is  good,  but  his  heart  is  wholly  and  perfectly 
opposed  to  it,  then  no  possible  means  and  external 
applications  will  be  sufficient  to  bring  him  to  the  least 
degree  of  right  disposition  and  exercise,  or  do  any- 
thing towards  it.  This  can  be  effected  only  by  the 
power  and  Spirit  of  God,  which  at  first  created  all 
things  out  of  nothing,  and  implanted  a  right  dispo- 
sition in  man   when   he   was  first   made.      It  is  as 

1.    in.,  p.  578. 


210  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

absurd  to  suppose  that  in  this  case  right  disposition 
and  exercise  do  take  place  in  the  heart  without  the 
all-creating  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  it  is  to 
suppose  that  the  whole  world  came  into  existence 
without  creating  power,  or  from  no  cause  at  all.^^^ 

He  says  of  the  sinner  at  the  time  of  regeneration : 

"  He  is  not  so  much  as  willing  to  accept  of  offered 
mercy,  but  opposes  God  and  his  grace  with  all  his 
heart,  however  anxious  he  may  be  about  his  eternal 
interest,  and  how  much  soever  he  prays  and  cries  for 
mercy,  and  continues  a  perfect  enemy  to  the  just  God 
and  the  Saviour,  until  his  heart  is  renewed,  and  the 
enmity  slain  by  the  regenerating  influences  of  God's 
Spirit."  2 

When  it  is  asked,  why  exhort  men  to  do  what 
they  never  will  do  in  response  to  the  exhortation, 
and  only  after  a  new  heart  has  been  given  them,  he 
replies;  if  God's  law  and  commands  were  not  en- 
forced upon  sinners,  they  would  not  understand  their 
duties  or  know  the  corruption  of  their  hearts  and  the 
condemnation  under  which  they  rest;  '^all  which  it 
is  important  and  even  necessary  the  sinner  should 
know  in  order  to  his  being  saved."  ^ 

Preaching  in  this  way  simply  makes  preaching 
immediate  repentance  a  commending  of  the  use  of 
means,  and  Hopkins  does  urge  the  use  of  means  as 
vigorously  as  any  Moderate  Calvinist. 

"Means  are  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  the 
conversion  and  salvation  of  men,  as  much    so    as    it 

1.    Ill,  p.  546.  2.    Ill,  p.  566.  3.    Ill,  p.  638. 


PKACTICAL  QUESTIONS.  211 

there  was  no  other  agent  except  the  subject,  and  noth- 
ing done  but  what  was  effected  by  means."  ^ 

He  teaches  that  men  must  be  prepared  for  regen- 
eration by  instruction  in  the  truths  of  the  gospel  and 
the  duties  of  Christian  life.  AYithout  this  knowledge 
their  life  in  a  regenerate  state  would  be  worthless. 

"The  reason  why  it  is  not  wise  and  suitable  to 
give  a  person  a  new  heart  in  such  circumstances  (those 
of  stupid  and  benighted  heathen)  and  without  the 
use  of  means  is,  that  in  such  a  case  there  is  no  foun- 
dation, provision,  or  opportunity  for  right  views  and 
exercises,  if  a  new  heart  should  be  given,  therefore 
no  good  would  be  answered  by  it.  This  would  be 
like  creating  a  monster  without  any  parts  or  capacity 
whereby  he  might  live  and  act  in  a  proper  way,  but 
so  as  to  act  monstrously,  and  even  counteract  and 
destroy  itself"  ^ 

He  held  that  not  only  a  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
but  a  sense  of  guilt,  a  consciousness  of  being  under 
condemnation,  and  a  conviction  of  utter  helplessness 
are  necessary  antecedents  of  regeneration,  and  that 
these  come  only  through  the  use  of  means.  As  is 
implied  in  previous  statements,  conversion  is  depend- 
ent on  means.  In  regeneration,  man  is  passive,  but 
conversion  is  his  own  act  in  response  to  regeneration, 
and  this  is  impossible  without  previous  instruction  in 
the  way  of  life.  ^ 

Hopkins  was  more  free  in  urging  the  use  of  the 
means  of  grace  than  some  of  his  followers  have  been. 
It  has  been  said  that  commending  the   study  of  the 

1.    ni,  p.  568.  2.    Ill,  p.  569.  3.    m,  p.57l. 


212  I^^EW   ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Bible  to  one  averse  to  the  Gospel  is  calling  upon 
him  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  since  with  the 
unregenerate,  even  the  study  of  the  Bible  is  sin. 
But  Hopkins,  considering  that  true  repentance  is 
sought,  intended  and  implied  in  commending  the  use 
of  means,  says : 

"  If  any  preacher  of  the  gospel  doubts  whether  he 
has  any  warrant  to  call  upon  and  exhort  sinners  to 
attend  the  means  of  grace,  he  appears  not  well  to 
understand  what  he  is  about;  for  he  is  really  doing 
this  while  he  is  calling  upon  and  exhorting  them  to 
repent  and  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ/^  ^ 

He  warns  preachers,  however,  of  the  danger  of 
urging  a  use  of  means  wliich  ends  in  acts  "short  of 
repentance.'' 

But  the  question  returns,  why  call  upon  men  to 
attend  upon  Christian  instruction,  when  it  is  certain 
that  persuasion  will  never  lead  them  to  repentance, 
and  that  they  will  increase  their  guilt  as  they  in- 
crease their  knowledge  of  the  truth  ?  The  reply  is : 
Their  greater  sinfulness  does  not  consist  in  their  new 
efforts  and  new  knowledge,  but  in  their  continued 
hatred  of  God. ^  On  the  other  hand,  "A  neglect 
of  the  means  is  an  instance  of  the  violation  of  the 
obligation  they  are  under,  which  they  are  not  guilty 
of  who  do  attend  with  concern  and  engagedness, 
however  guilty  and  vile  they  may  be  in  other  re- 
spects.''^ Moreover  the  increase  of  guilt  Avhile 
using  the  means  of  grace  is  no  ground  of  discour- 
agement,   "  For    in    the    gospel    there    is    no    more 

1.    in,  p.  272.  2.    Ill,  p.  264.  3.    Ill,  p.  272. 


HOPKINSIANISM.  213 

encouragement  given  to  a  less  sinner  than  to  a 
greater,  that  he  shall  find  mercy  rather  than  the 
other,  while  both  continue  impenitent,  and  opposers 
of  the  way  of  salvation  therein  revealed."  ^  The 
Hopkinsians  are,  in  truth,  more  emphatic  than  the 
Moderate  Calvinists  in  making  a  knowledge  of 
Christian  doctrine  a  condition  of  God's  regenerating 
work. 

III. 

HOPKIXSIANISM    AS    A    PRACTICAL    SCHEME    OF 
DOCTRIXE. 

The  descendants  of  the  Puritans  value  theology 
for  its  influence  on  life,  not  primarily  as  an  intellec- 
tual theory.  New  England  history  records  marked 
revival  experiences,  often  the  entire  transformation 
of  communities  because  of  religious  awakenings.  It 
is  a  question  of  interest,  whether  Hopkinsian  teach- 
ing promoted  piety  and  good  morals  among  the  peo- 
ple. It  can  certainly  be  said  that  one  of  the  most 
extensive  and  effective  religious  movements  known  in 
the  country  followed  this  theological  discussion.  The 
minds  of  those  affected  by  it  must  have  been  some- 
what familiar  with  the  theological  drift  of  the  time. 
Disinterested  benevolence,  entire  submission,  foreordi- 
nation  were  terms  in  popular  use  at  the  beginning 
of  the  century,  much  as  homoousios  and  ek  tou  j^airos 
were  in  Nicaean  times.  The  generation  saturated 
with  theologrcal  thought  was  the  generation  that  was 
most  favorably  affected  by  the  revival  influences  of 
the   Divine   Spirit.      And  the   peculiar  views  of  the 

1.     Ill,  p.  274. 


214  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Hopkinsians  may  have  been  a  source  of  power  in 
the  enforcement  of  the  truth.  Dr.  George  Leon 
AYalker,  says: 

"  Account  for  it  as  we  may,  there  can  be  no 
question  that,  speaking  in  a  large  and  general  sense, 
and  recognizing  very  considerable  limitations  to  the 
statement,  the  revival  period  Avhich  began  in  1797, 
and  w^hich  was  followed  at  various  epochs  by  similar 
awakenings  for  over  forty  years,  was  conspicuously 
Hopkinsian  in  character,  and  was  illustrative  in  ex- 
perience of  what  might  be  anticipated  as  the  results 
of  that  system  of  doctrine."  ^ 

Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  who  had  been  active  in  re- 
vival work,  said  in  a  public  address,  that  the  power 
of  his  preaching,  if  it  had  had  any  power,  had  been  in 
urging  immediate  repentance,  the  duty  of  submitting 
to  God  without  delay.  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  his  class  room,  at  times  spoke  of  unfavor- 
able results  flowing  from  Hopkinsian  preaching.  He 
believed  that  it  deterred  some  good  men  from  a 
public  profession  of  their  faith.  He  referred  to 
individuals  who  were  too  conscientious  to  claim  that 
their  disinterestedness  had  reached  the  required 
point.  He  thought  it  natural  that  business  men  of 
strong  and  discriminating  minds,  though  they  were 
of  upright  life  and  generous  in  their  support  of 
Christian  enterprises,  should  question  whether  they 
had  yet  attained  a  willingness  to  be  lost,  and  should 
therefore  defer  a  connection  with  the  church. 

It  will  be  in  place  to  notice  more  specifically  the 
effect  of  this  preaching  in  counteracting  some  of  the 

1.    Religious  Life  of  New  England,  p.  134. 


HOPKINSIANISM.  215 

natural,  not  necessary,  unfavorable  effects  of  Mod- 
erate Calvinism,  and  some  of  the  unfortunate  results 
of  an  extreme  application  of  the  Hopkinsian  system. 

1.  It  taus^ht  that  no  one  is  to  rest  till  he  is  in 
harmony  with,  and  at  peace  with,  God.  When  one 
is  taught  that  he  is  to  use  the  means  of  grace  and 
wait  God's  time  for  regeneration  he  may  infer  that 
waiting  permits  an  untroubled  lingering  in  a  state  of 
impenitence.  Hopkins  charges  his  opponents  with 
teaching  that  those  who  use  means  and  wait  are  per- 
forming their  entire  duty,  and  are,  therefore,  sinless, 
holy,  without  a  change  of  heart,  and  are  defeating 
the  very  object  for  which  means  are  used.  How- 
ever just  a  conclusion  this  may  be  from  the  premises 
assumed,  it  would  not  be  accepted  by  any  calling 
themselves  Calvinists ;  still  Hopkinsianism  probably 
did  point  out  a  defect  in  the  preaching  of  the  day. 

2.  Hopkinsianism  taught  very  clearly  that  there 
is  no  merit  in  conviction  of  sin  and  self-condemna- 
tion. One  who  has  long  been  thoughtless  and  care- 
less in  a  godless  life,  when  roused  to  see  the  sinful- 
ness and  danger  of  his  course,  is  sometimes  tempted 
to  make  a  merit  of  taking  the  side  of  his  accuser. 
He  may  assume  a  degree  of  righteousness  in  approv- 
ing God's  condemation  of  himself.  The  new  divinity, 
as  it  was  called,  insisted  that  this  is  only  another 
form  of  rebellion,  a  new  development  of  the  pride 
of  a  wicked  heart. 

3.  Hopkinsianism  emphasized  the  doctrine  that 
there  is  no  act  of  an  unregenerate  man  which  is  the 
condition  of  the  pardon  of  sin.  It  is  possible  to 
hold  that  God  has  promised  pardon  to  the  impenitent 


216       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

man  who  takes  a  certain  attitude  towards  himself 
while  still  in  impenitence ;  such  a  promise  the  new 
divinity  denied.  It  is  possible  to  carry  the  erro- 
neous opinion  still  further  and  to  maintain  that  the 
sinner  has  his  salvation  in  his  ov/n  hands  because  of 
his  power  to  take  at  any  time  the  attitude  required. 
This  the  new  divinity  considered  a  presumptuous 
and  dangerous  error.  It  taught  that  the  unrepent- 
ant man  is  lost  already.  That  it  is  out  of  his 
power  to  put  God  under  the  least  obligation. 

On  the  other  hand  there  were  some  unhappy 
influences  flowing  from  this  new  divinity. 

1.  It  gave  too  little  prominence  to  the  fact  that 
Jesus  Christ  came  to  seek  and  save  the  lost.  It 
gave  too  little  encouragement  to  those  who  are  in- 
quiring as  to  the  way  of  life.  It  taught  men  that 
they  were  to  repent;  that  that  was  their  first  and 
only  duty;  that  they  could  do  it  of  themselves  and 
ought  to  do  it  of  themselves,  and  that  nothing  else 
was  of  any  avail  for  their  salvation.  It  taught  that 
the  use  of  means  to  effect  repentance  was  simply 
deferring  a  duty  and  provoking  the  wrath  of  God. 
It  taught  that  men  were  not  to  seek  God's  aid  in 
reaching  a  state  of  penitence;  were  not  to  ask  for 
clearer  views  of  truth  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  were  simply  to  repent.  It  taught  that 
regeneration,  if  it  ever  came  to  them,  would  come  as 
a  gift  that  had  not  been  promised,  for  which  they 
should  not  look,  and  to  seek  which  would  be  turn- 
ing aside  from  the  demands  of  duty.  It  taught 
that  instead  of  thinking  of  themselves,  the  one  thing 
incumbent  on   them   was  to   love  being  in  general. 


HOPKINSIANISM.  217 

Yet  it  taught,  with  how  much  consistency  we  need 
not  inquire,  that  men  must  make  diligent  and  earn- 
est use  of  the  means  of  grace,  and  that  in  no  other 
way  is  it  possible  to  enter  on  the  regenerate  life. 
It  still  maintained  that  one  increased  his  guilt  and 
became  a  more  daring  rebel  by  becoming  familiar 
with  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  but  added  that  this 
was  not  a  matter  of  much  account,  since  the  amount 
of  guilt  has  no  connection  with  the  pardon  of  sin. 

2.  Hopkinsianism  denies  the  existence  of  a  certain 
class  of  persons  which  all  pastors  find  in  connection 
with  their  churches.  There  are  many  individuals 
who  are  familiar  with  the  Christian  doctrine  and 
aware  of  the  worth  of  Christian  institutions,  who  are 
yet  in  an  indefinable  and  uncertain  attitude  in  their 
Christian  relations.  Probably  the  majority  of  the 
true  followers  of  Christ,  who  have  been  under  strong 
evangelical  influences  from  their  childhood,  do  not 
know  when  they  passed  from  the  state  of  nature  to 
that  of  grace.  Of  this  large  number  many  reach, 
without  prolonged  struggle,  a  somewhat  settled 
assurance  of  their  good  estate ;  others  question  and 
linger  and  finally  cherish  a  dim  hope  that  they  have 
passed  from  death  to  life ;  still  others  review  and  re- 
review  their  experiences  and  settle  down  in  a  state 
of  uncertainty.  Almost  every  church  of  considerable 
size  and  somewhat  prolonged  history,  has  in  its 
membership  or  under  its  influence  a  class  of  persons 
of  indefinable  Christian  standing.  They  give  char- 
acter to  the  Christian  community,  help  to  sustain 
the  church,  rejoice  in  its  prosperity,  yet  are  not  very 
obviously    representatives    of   Christ.        What    shall 


218  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

we  say  of  such  persons  ?  Many  of  our  strong 
churches  would  have  gone  out  of  existence  but 
for  their  aid  in  time  past,  and  many  would  now 
be  greatly  weakened  if  their  co-operation  were  with- 
drawn. The  common  judgment  is  hopeful  concern- 
ing them  but  would  not  dare  affirm  that  they  are 
all  of  the  household  of  faith.  Hopkinsianism  rejects 
the  common  estimate  of  this  class  of  persons,  and 
says  of  any  of  them  that  are  unregenerate  that  they 
are  worse  than  Sabbath-breakers  and  profane  swear- 
ers, that  they  are  more  like  wild  animals  caught  in 
a  net  than  men  to  be  respected  for  their  virtues  and 
good  works. 

3.  Hopkinsianism  is  not  sustained  in  its  estimate 
of  the  moral  worth  of  men  as  citizens  and  members 
of  the  community.  When  carried  out  consistently  it 
declares  every  man  to  be  as  bad  as  he  can  be, — as 
bad  as  his  abilities  permit.  The  man  who  indulges 
his  self-love  in  relieving  pain,  distress  and  poverty  is 
as  bad  as  the  man  who  indulges  his  self-love  in 
theft,  robbery  and  bloodshed.  The  amiable  and 
affectionate  son  who  finds  his  highest  pleasure  in  the 
gratitude  of  a  dependent  widowed  mother,  whom  he 
cares  for  not  as  a  part  of  being  in  general,  but  as 
his  own,  is  as  guilty  as  the  son  who  finds  his  pleasure 
in  the  revelry  and  mischief  which  cost  his  mother 
her  scanty  means  of  support.  This  is  a  theory  which 
admits  of  ingenious  argiunentation,  but  it  is  a  theory 
of  which  the  practical  judgment  of  mankind  makes 
short  work.  Men  believe  there  is  a  right  and  a 
wrong  in  the  world,  and  are  perfectly  confident  they 
know  the  difference  between  them.      They  know  how 


HOPKINSIANISM.  219 

to  come  at  the  distinction  by  a  much  shorter  process 
than  through  love  of  being  simply  considered.  They 
believe  it  is  lawful  to  do  good  and  not  lawful  to  do 
evil.  The  intelligence  of  the  world  accepts  these 
distinctions,  men  everywhere  recognize  them.  All 
the  intercourse  of  the  world  presupposes  them.  All 
tragedy,  all  comedy  is  based  on  the  assurance  that 
the  good  deserves  reward  and  iniquity  is  justly  pun- 
ished. Yet  the  good  and  the  bad  together,  in  much 
of  social  life,  may  fall  w^holly  under  that  which  the 
Hopkinsians  designate  evil,  and  the  good,  so-called, 
may  be  more  decidedly  an  object  of  condemnation 
than  the  bad.  Our  modern  years  have  been  prolific 
in  novels  having  a  moral  aim,  much  of  the  most 
valuable  literature  of  our  time  has  been  a  protrayal 
of  the  difference  between  a  life  of  friendship,  honesty 
and  public  spirit  and  a  life  of  selfishness,  greed  and 
treachery.  We  must  all  accept  the  fact  that  a  good 
life,  as  the  world  judges  it,  may  not  be  one  of  true 
religious  devotion,  but  it  would  be  a  bold  assumption, 
to  maintain  that  God  knows  no  difference  between  a 
Jeffreys  and  a  Hale,  between  a  Hadrian  and  a  Nero. 
It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Hopkins  and  Hemmen- 
way  did  not  magnify  their  agreements  as  well  as 
their  differences.  Both  held  to  the  indispensableness 
of  the  means  of  grace  ;  both  held  that  mere  attention 
to  them  does  not  satisfy  the  demands  of  duty.  The 
latter  held  that  attention  to  them  with  desire  to 
receive  the  benefit  coming  through  them  may  be 
considered  a  probable  advance  towards  the  divine 
favor,  without,  however,  effecting  a  necessary  con- 
nection.     The  Newport  divine  held  that  such  atten- 


220  ^^EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

tion  did  not  at  all  elicit  God's  favorable  regard; 
but  still  introduced  one  into  the  circle  of  those  who 
might  receive  his  favor.  He  also  admitted  that  one 
avoided  guilt  by  attendance  on  the  means  of  grace 
while  he  performed  no  right  act;  his  opponent  held 
that  avoiding  guilt  was  a  right  act — in  some  respects. 
Hopkins'  supralapsarianism  goes  far  towards  ac- 
counting for  his  differences  with  his  opponents.  It 
would  have  been  easy  to  make  the  ground  of  dispute 
narrower  than  it  was,  and  this  might  have  had  a 
good  effect  upon  the  opponents  of  Hopkinsianism  at 
a  later  day. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

THE    ATONEMENT. 


The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  has  awakened  much 
interest  in 'New  England  but  did  not  come  promi- 
nently under  discussion  till  the  excitement  over  other 
theological  themes  had  somewhat  subsided.  Indeed 
it  never  has  been  treated  here  with  that  originality 
of  conception  and  constructive  power  of  thought  that 
are  found  in  the  debates  on  some  other  doctrines. 
Essays  upon  it  have  aimed  rather  at  the  avoiding  of 
difficulties  and  meeting  objections,  than  at  the  devel- 
ment  of  a  central  idea.  The  published  writings  of 
different  theologians,  after  Edwards  the  Younger  and 
before  Dr.  Bushnell,  have  not  been  discussions  in  which 
different  views  were  presented,  but  attempts  to  pre- 
sent the  same  view  in  somewhat  varied  statements, 
as  if  each  preceding  treatise  were  correct  in  theory 
but  not  wholly  satisfactory  in  form. 

William  Pynchon^s  Treatise. 
There  was  a  treatise  on  this   subject,  earlier  than 
any  referred  to  above,  which  may,  perhaps,  be  looked 


222       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

upon  as  prophetic  of  coming  events,  but  which  is  now 
of  merely  historic  interest.  William  Pynchon,  a 
layman  of  Springfield,  Mass.,  a  man  of  mark  in  his 
day,  published  in  1650  a  dialogue  entitled  (to  copy 
from  Norton)  "  The  Meritorious  Price  of  our  Re- 
demption, Justification,' '  etc.,  which  created  a  good 
deal  of  stir  in  the  Colony.  It  was  thought  to  teach 
dangerous  errors,  and  the  General  Court  ordered  that 
it  be  burnt  in  the  market  place,  and  that  John 
Norton,  Teacher  of  the  Church  of  Ipswich,  be  re- 
quested to  prepare  an  answer  to  it.  The  heresy 
would  not  now  excite  so  much  commotion,  but  its 
more  positive  portions  would  not  meet  with  much 
favor.  The  special  motive  force  in  the  preparation 
of  Pynchon's  work,  it  would  seem  probable,  was  aver- 
sion to  some  features  of  the  satisfaction  theory  as 
taught  in  his  day.  He  could  not  accept  the  view 
that  Christ  suffered  under  the  wrath  of  God  and  en- 
dured hell-pains.  He  denied  that  we  are  justified 
by  the  legal  obedience  of  Christ,  that  is,  by  the  obed- 
ience which  he,  as  a  man,  rendered  to  the  moral  law. 
He  considered  this  obedience  necessary  to  Christ  that 
he  might  be  the  spotless  lamb  to  be  offered  to  God, 
but  of  no  avail  in  the  atonement.  He  rejected  im- 
putation, whether  that  of  our  sins  to  Christ  or  that 
of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us.  He  considered  the 
imputation  of  both  the  active  and  passive  obedience 
of  Christ  to  us  absurd,  since  no  tyrant  would  demand 
such  double  satisfaction  for  a  debt.  His  theory  was 
that  Christ's  mediatorial  obedience  satisfied  the  wrath 
of  God  against  sin  and  procured  the  pardon  of  the 
elect,  or  effected  the  atonement.      Christ's  death  was 


THE  ATONEMENT.  223 

miraculous,  lie  died  at  his  own  volition.  The  Jews 
attempted  to  kill  him,  supposed  they  did  kill  him, 
Satan  assailed  him,  inflicted,  through  his  instruments, 
the  bruises  that  were  for  our  transgressions,  according 
to  Genesis  3:15,  but  all  this  was  simply  a  trial  of 
mediatorial  obedience,  none  of  these  things  could 
deprive  him  of  life,  it  was  by  his  own  act  that  he 
closed  his  career  and  offered  up  his  soul  an  oblation 
to  God. 

"  Therefore  the  tree  on  which  Christ  was  crucified 
as  a  malefactor,  cannot  be  the  altar,  neither  were  the 
Roman  soldiers  the  priests  by  whom  this  mediatorial 
sacrifice  was  offered  up  to  God,  but  it  was  his  own 
Godhead  that  was  priest,  and  his  own  Godhead  was 
the  altar,  by  which  he  offered  up  his  soul  to  God, 
a  mediatorial  sacrifice  for  the  procuring  of  our  redemp- 
tion from  the  curse  of  the  law."  ^ 

By  atonement  Pynchon  meant  justification  and 
adoption.  He  seems  to  have  conceived  of  it  as  at 
once  a  sentiment  and  an  act  of  God  the  Father.  It 
is  his  merciful  and  forgiving  spirit  acting  itself  out 
towards  the  elect.  The  divine  wrath  held  sin  under 
stern  condemnation,  the  Mediatorial  sacrifice  satisfied 
the  condemning  sentiment  and  called  forth  the  favor 
of  the  reconciled  Sovereign. 

"The  justice  and  righteousness  of  a  sinner  doth 
not  lie  in  his  own  righteous  nature,  nor  in  his  own 
just  actions,  nor  yet  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
imputed,  but  it  doth  lie  only  in  the  Father's  right- 
eous atonement,  pardon  and  forgiveness,  procured  by 

1.    Norton's  Discussion,  p.  104. 


224       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

the  meritorious  sacrifice  of  atonement,  and  conveyed 
by  the  Father  through  the  Mediator  to  every  be- 
lieving sinner,  as  soon  as  they  are  in  the  Mediator 
by  faith.^^  1 

New  England  was  not  ready  for  free  theological 
discussions  in  Pynchon's  day,  but  the  trend  of  his 
criticisms  indicated  the  direction  in  which  later  theo- 
logians were  to  pursue  their  speculations.  Norton's 
quotations  have  furnished  the  material  for  the  above 
remarks.  Pynchon's  book  is  difficult  of  access,  only 
three  copies  being  known  to  bibliologists. 

The  atonement  is  sometimes  said  to  be  the  cen- 
tral doctrine  of  theology.  Since  it  opens  the  way 
from  the  world  of  sin  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  it 
must  always  have  a  prominent  place  in  any  scheme 
of  Christian  thought.  And  since  its  effect  must  be 
felt  in  every  individual  instance  of  passing  from  the 
state  of  nature  into  the  regenerate  life,  it  must  be 
recognized  as  a  doctrine  of  practical  importance. 
Yet  it  is  presented  under  manifold  theories,  no  one 
of  which  has  found  general  acceptance,  not  even 
acceptance  sufficiently  wide  to  give  it  a  marked 
preference.  There  is,  indeed,  an  agreement  as  to  its 
general  outlines  among  those  known  as  orthodox, 
yet  the  different  parties  among  them  hold  to  a 
variety  of  modifications,  some  of  which  approach 
very  nearly  to  a  trenching  upon  the  substance  of  the 
doctrine  itself.  On  the  whole  it  may  be  said  that 
this  doctrine  is  less  clearly  defined  in  its  details  than 
any  other  prominent  doctrine  of  Christianity.  The 
New   England   vicAV,  with   which   we  are  at  present 

1.    Ibid.,  p.  216. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  225 

concerned,  is  one  of  those  most  clearly  defined  and 
easily  comprehended,  but  is  not  the  most  widely 
received;  and  there  is  not  perfect  agreement  upon 
all  its  subordinate  parts  among  its  adherents. 

Brief  Statement  of  the  Satisfaction  Theory, 

An  accurate  comprehension  of  the  New  England 
theory  is  most  easily  attained  by  noticing  first  the 
satisfaction  theory.  It  aims  at  the  same  result  as 
that  sought  by  the  latter,  and  recognizes  the  same 
means  by  which  the  process  of  redemption  is  carried 
on,  it  adopts,  to  a  large  extent,  the  same  terms  in 
setting  forth  its  doctrines,  and  it  inculcates  the  same 
entire  dependence  on  Jesus  Christ  for  salvation.  It 
does  not,  on  the  other  hand,  give  the  same  interpre- 
tation to  all  the  passages  of  the  Scriptures  relating 
to  the  atonement,  and  it  does  not  in  all  cases  attri- 
bute the  same  design,  or  the  same  eifect,  to  the 
means  used. 

The  satisfaction  theory  may  be  thus  stated.  The 
Ruler  of  the  Universe  having  established  a  system 
of  government  adapted  to  his  creatures,  is  obliged  to 
maintain  it  in  its  integrity  and  enforce  it  upon  all 
its  subjects.  Men  have  made  themselves  transgres- 
sors of  the  law  and  have  fallen  under  condemnation. 
God  in  his  love  and  mercy  would  gladly  overlook 
their  wrong-doing  and  save  them  from  the  penalty 
they  have  incurred,  but  is  unable  to  do  so  because 
it  would  degrade  his  government  and  be  an  admis- 
sion that  its  precepts  and  penalties  are  unimportant, 
at  least  not  indispensable. 

The   guilty  must,  therefore,  suffer  the  penalty  of 


226        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

the  law  unless  some  means  may  be  devised  by  which 
transgressors  may  be  restored  to  favor.  In  order 
to  rescue  them  from  eternal  woe  God  has  formed  a 
scheme  of  redemption,  by  which  the  sinner  may  be 
delivered  from  the  punishment  he  deserves  and  the 
law  of  God  still  sustained  in  its  authority.  The 
scheme  is  this  :  Christ  determines  to  unite  the  human 
race,  or  a  portion  of  it,  to  himself,  becomes  the  head 
and  representative  of  his  chosen  ones  and  for  them 
suffers  death,  the  penalty  of  the  law  ;  the  race  in  whole 
or  in  part  in  this  way  dies  and  pays  the  penalty  due  to 
sin.  Moreover  Christ  obeys  the  law,  and  by  a  sinless 
life  earns  for  his  own  the  reward  that  would  be  due 
to  a  life  of  holiness.  The  effects  flowing  from 
Christ's  death  and  obedience  are  made  over  to  those 
whom  he  represents  and  they  become  entitled  to  the 
rewards  of  sinlessness.  The  penalty  of  the  law  is 
remitted  in  the  case  of  the  redeemed  by  a  judicial 
act.  It  is  decided  that  the  law  has  no  claim  against 
them.  A  place  in  heaven  is  also  granted  them  by 
a  judicial  act.  It  is  decided  that  Christ's  obedience 
being  imputed  to  them,  they  have  a  title  to  the  re- 
wards of  obedience  and  the  promises  involved  in  the 
divine  government  must  be  fulfilled  in  their  behalf. 
Christ  by  his  death,  which  is  called  his  passive  obe- 
dience, satisfied  the  law  and  satisfied  the  divine  sense 
of  justice  by  paying  the  full  penalty  for  sin.  He 
also  satisfied  the  law  by  a  perfect  obedience  to  its 
precepts  and  won  thereby  the  blessings  which  the 
divine  system  of  government  confers  through  its 
legitimate  operation.  Hence  a  full  salvation  is  se- 
cured for  those  united  to  Christ. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  22T 

Ohjections  to  this  Theory  and  Genesis  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Theory, 

It  is  said  that  the  satisfaction  theory  involves 
either  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  or  that  of 
a  limited  atonement.  If  Christ  unites  himself  to 
the  race  as  a  whole,  and  as  the  head  and  representa- 
tive suffers  and  obeys  for  all,  then  all  must  be 
saved.  If  he  unites  only  a  chosen  portion  to  him- 
self and  suffers  and  dies  for  them,  then  he  does  not 
provide  a  salvation  for  the  remaining  portion  of 
mankind,  and  it  cannot  be  offered  to  them.  It  is 
also  objected  that  the  union  between  Christ  and  his 
followers  is  not  such  as  to  render  his  obedience  and 
suffering  theirs ;  that  the  imputation  of  his  merits 
to  them  is  an  absurdity.  It  is  said  also  that  pun- 
ishing the  innocent  in  order  to  save  the  guilty  is  an 
injustice  that  cannot  be  attributed  to  God.  It  is 
said  again  that  if  Christ  paid  the  penalty  of  the  law 
by  his  suffering,  then  his  obedience  was  not  needed 
in  the  atonement,  when  the  penalty  is  paid  the  cul- 
prit must  be  acquitted.  And  it  is  added  that  Christ 
could  not  obey  for  others,  it  was  necessary  that  he 
should  obey  for  himself  that  he  might  be  a  fit  and 
spotless  sacrifice  to  be  offered  for  sin.  It  is  also 
objected,  that  a  salvation  secured  by  literally  paying 
the  penalty  of  sin  and  earning  the  reward  of  heaven 
sets  aside  the  grace  of  God.  If  the  penalty  is  paid  and 
the  reward  earned,  then  the  redeemed  may  demand 
salvation  as  their  right,  and  there  is  nothing  for 
God  to  forgive ;  nothing  for  him  to  bestow  as  a 
favor.  Again  it  is  said  that  the  satisfaction  theory 
has  too  much  afiinity  with  the  business  affairs  of  the 


228       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

world.  It  is  akin  to  the  repair  of  damages,  or  the 
payment  of  a  debt,  or  the  restoration  of  a  system 
to  working  order,  whereas  the  doctrines  of  salvation 
are  addressed  to  the  intellect  of  men  and  should  be 
valued  for  their  moral  force,  not  for  their  energy 
among  the  causal  forces  of  nature.  It  is  thought 
that  we  reach  a  higher  plane  of  sentiment  when  we 
remove  the  atonement  from  the  sphere  of  legal  pro- 
cedure to  the  sphere  of  moral  considerations ;  from 
the  judicial  sphere  to  the  didactic  and  impressional. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  New  England  theologians 
long  felt  the  force  of  some  or  all  of  these  objections, 
and  in  their  own  minds  modified  more  or  less  the 
traditional  theory,  yet  they  did  not  agree  on  any 
new,  publicly  announced  scheme  of  doctrine.  It 
was  not  till  near  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century 
that  the  atonement  became  one  of  the  characteristic 
doctrines  of  the  new  theology. 

Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards  preached  his  three  sermons, 
which  are  still  considered  high  authority  on  the  sub- 
ject, in  1785.  Dr.  Stephen  West  published  his 
treatise,  of  like  import,  the  same  year.  In  early 
times  the  satisfaction  theory  had  been  firmly  held. 
Dr.  Smalley  quotes  from  Rev.  Thomas  Hooker,  the 
first  minister  in  Hartford,  Conn.,  the  following, — 
a  supposed  address  of  the  believer  to  God : 

"  Here  is  the  blood  of  Jesus  which  thou  art  well 
pleased  with,  hast  accepted  of,  therefore.  Lord,  give 
me  my  due;  that  comfort,  that  peace,  that  wisdom, 
that  assurance  which  I  stand  in  need  of  ^ 

President  Edwards,  the  elder,  held  to  the   satis- 

1.    Park's  Collection,  p.  52. 


THE  ATONEMENT.  229 

faction  theory,  though  he  indulged  in  speculations 
which  served  through  his  followers  to  modify  that 
theory,  and  he  gave  his  approval  to  Bellamy's 
"  True  Religion  Delineated,'^  in  which  the  New 
England  view  is  set  forth.  But  among  his  writings 
is  a  treatise  defending  elaborately  the  doctrine  of 
satisfaction.  He  maintained  its  reasonableness  and 
necessity,  and  upheld  the  propriety  of  punishing  one 
for  the  sin  of  another  on  the  ground  of  the  unity 
that  may  subsist  between  them.  Dr.  Hopkins  made 
the  atoning  work  of  Christ  consist  w^holly  in  his 
sufferings,  not  in  his  obedience.  He  held  that  it 
prepared  the  way  for  pardon,  but  did  not  remove 
sin.  Still  he  held  that  we  have  one  lot  with  Christ 
because  of  our  union  with  him.  Dr.  Bellamy,  in 
his  "True  Eeligion  Delineated,"  published  in  1750, 
presents  the  New  England  view  in  its  fulness, 
though  not  at  great  length.  He  taught  that  the 
atonement  removes  a  bar  to  the  pardon  of  sin. 
Speaking  of  God's  appointing  and  ordering  the  death 
of  Christ,  he  says  : 

"In  his  conduct,  the  whole  of  it  considered,  he 
appears  as  severe  against  sin  as  if  he  had  damned 
the  whole  world  without  any  mixture  of  mercy. 
The  infinite  dignity  of  his  Son  causes  those  suffer- 
ings he  bore  in  our  room  to  be  as  bright  a  display 
of  the  divine  holiness  and  justice,  as  if  all  the 
human  race  had  for  their  sin  been  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  and  the  smoke  of  their 
torments  ascended  forever  and  ever.  Moreover,  by 
all  this,  a  way  is  opened  for  the  free  and  honor- 
able exercise  of  mercy  and  grace  towards  a  sinful, 
guilty    world.      It  may    be  done    consistently    with 


230       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

the  honor  of  God,  of  his  holiness  and  justice,  his 
law  and  government,  his  truth  and  sacred  authority, 
for  the  honor  of  all  these  is  effectually  secured/^  ^ 

The  immediate  purpose  of  bringing  the  New  Eng- 
land view  into  prominence  in  the  later  years  of  the 
last  century,  was  opposition  to  Universalism.  This 
scheme  was  industriously  propagated  at  that  time, 
and  found  numerous  adherents.  Kev.  John  Murray, 
a  convert  under  Whitefield's  preaching,  derived  the 
doctrine  from  the  satisfaction  theory  of  the  atone- 
ment. Christ  tasted  death  for  every  man,  therefore 
every  man  is  delivered  from  death.  This  exposition 
had  some  adherents,  but  was  not  accepted  by  the 
Universalist  preachers  generally.  The  New  England 
divines,  however,  deemed  it  necessary  so  to  state  their 
scheme  of  salvation  that  there  should  be  no  basis  for 
this  inference,  and  so  to  state  it  also,  that  a  limited 
atonement  should  not  be  implied.  They  aimed  still 
further  to  give  more  prominence  to  the  grace  of  God 
in  the  salvation  of  men  than  was  to  be  found,  as 
they  considered,  in  a  justification  that  simply  gave 
the  sinner  what  was  his  due.  They  held  that  the 
atonement  did  not  place  God  under  the  least  obliga- 
tion to  pardon  the  sinner,  but  simply  opened  the  way 
for  pardon,  the  forgiveness  of  sin  was  still  an  act  of 
sovereign  mercy. 

I. 

THE  NEW  ENGLAND  THEORY. 

It  was  held  that  God  desires  the  salvation  of  men 
and  would  gladly  pardon  them,  if  his   personal  feel- 

1.    Works  I,  p.  373. 


VIEW  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  231 

ings  merely  were  involved,  but  since  he  is  a  ruler, 
responsible  for  the  execution  of  the  law  and  the 
maintenance  of  the  government,  he  cannot  consult  his 
personal  feelings  simply,  but  is  under  obligation  to 
sustain  the  honor  of  the  system  under  which  he  has 
placed  men.  The  question  before  him,  therefore,  was 
how  can  men  be  pardoned  and  the  law  still  retained 
in  force?  The  New  England  answer  was,  if  he 
could  convince  his  subjects  that  his  estimation  of  the 
law  was  not  changed,  that  his  hatred  of  sin  was  not 
diminished,  pardon  might  be  safely  granted.  God 
saw  that  this  result,  under  certain  conditions  relating 
to  the  sinner,  might  be  reached  if  he  inflicted  such 
suffering  upon  his  own  Son  as  w^ould  impress  the  sub- 
jects of  his  government  with  the  same  sense  of  the 
majesty  of  law  and  the  heinousness  of  sin  that  would 
be  produced  by  the  punishment  of  the  wicked.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Son  became  incarnate,  suffered  and  died 
on  the  cross,  and  a  way  was  opened  for  the  exer- 
cise of  mercy.  In  this  way  an  atonement  is  made 
wliich  consists  in  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ; 
especially  in  his  death.  They  constitute  the  atone- 
ment because  they  take  the  place  of  the  punishment 
of  the  sinner.  Dr.  Woods,  in  his  reply  to  Dr.  Ware, 
says: 

"The  sufferings  of  Christ,  as  we  view  them,  are 
a  direct  and  unequalled  display  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and 
the  abhorrence  with  which  God  regards  it.  They 
are  intended  primarily  for  this  very  purpose."^ 

The  younger  Edwards,  says  : 

1.    p.  207. 


232       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

"The  atonement  is  the  substitute  for  the  punish- 
ment threatened  in  the  law;  and  was  designed  to 
answer  the  same  ends  of  supporting  the  authority  of 
the  law,  the  dignity  of  the  divine  moral  government, 
and  the  consistency  of  the  divine  conduct  in  legisla- 
tion and  execution.  By  the  atonement  it  appears 
that  God  is  determined  that  the  law  shall  be  sup- 
ported: that  it  shall  not  be  despised  or  transgressed 
with  impunity,  and  that  it  is  an  evil  and  a  bitter 
thing  to  sin  against  God/'^ 

Burge  says: 

"If  God  had  pardoned  sinners  without  an  atone- 
ment, he  would  have  been  infinitely  unjust  to  his 
kingdom.  If  however,  anything  by  way  of  atone- 
ment could  be  done  which  would  tend  to  deter  others 
from  disobedience,  as  effectually  as  would  the  execu- 
tion of  the  penalty  of  the  law  on  transgressors,  God 
might,  out  of  respect  to  this,  pardon  transgressors  and 
be  just  to  his  kingdom  still.'^^ 

Dr.  GriJB&n,  arguing  from  the  Scriptural  use  of 
terms,  says : 

"We  have,  therefore,  no  authority  to  call  any  of 
Christ's  influence  an  atonement  but  that  which  con- 
stituted the  cover  for  sin.  *  *  >}«  Now  to  cover 
sin  is  a  figurative  expression,  and  plainly  means  no 
more  than  that  sin  is  so  far  hid  from  view  that  it  is 
not  to  be  punished.  Atonement,  then,  is  merely  that 
which  is  adapted  to  prevent  punishment,  or  that  which 
came  in  the  room  of  punishment  and  laid  a  founda- 
tion for  our  discharge  from  every  part  of  the  curse. 
It  reached  no  further,  and  had  no  bearing  on  our 
positive  reward.''^ 

Dr.  Emmons  says : 

"The   great   difficulty,  therefore,  in    the  way   of 

1.    Park's  Collection,  p.  8.  2.    Ibid.,  p.  449,  3.    Ibid.,  p.  148. 


VIEW  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  233 

man's  salvation  was  to  reconcile  God's  disposition  to 
punish  with  his  disposition  to  forgive;  or  in  other 
words,  to  reconcile  his  justice  and  nis  mercy.  This 
was  a  difficulty  in  the   divine   character,  and   a   still 

freater  difficulty  in  the  divine  government.  *  ^i^  * 
low  then  could  grace  be  displayed  consistently  with 
justice?  This  question  God  alone  was  able  to  solve. 
We  know  that  he  could  be  just  to  himself,  if  his 
justice  were  displayed  by  the  sufferings  of  a  proper 
substitute  in  the  room  of  sinners.  And  as  he  saw 
that  such  a  substitute  was  necessary,  he  ajypointed 
Christ  to  take  the  place  of  sinners  and  to  suffer  and 
die  the  just  for  the  unjust.''  ^ 

These  quotations  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
theory  before  us,  when  formulated  as  it  was  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  18th  century,  taught  that  the  office 
of  the  atonement  is  to  produce  an  effect  upon  the 
minds  of  intelligent  moral  beings,  not  to  make  com- 
pensation for  failures.  It  teaches  that  Christ  did  not 
suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law,  but  that  his  sufferings 
produce  an  effect  equal  to  that  which  would  have 
been  produced  by  the  full  execution  of  the  penalty 
on  the  transgressor.  The  law  made  no  charge  against 
him,  consequently  the  idea  of  punishment  is  an  ab- 
surdity, but  the  safety  of  the  universe  demanded  an 
adequate  exhibition  of  God's  wrath  against  sin  and 
this  was  amply  furnished  in  the  sufferings  which 
Christ  endured  in  the  sinner's  place.  The  claim  that 
Christ  suffered  the  penalty  due  to  the  elect,  being 
one  with  them,  they  with  him  constituting  one  mys- 
tical person,  is  rejected  as  a  device  of  mysticism  which 
has  never  received  much  favor  from  ordinary  Amer- 
ican Puritanism,  especially  in  its  later  phases. 

1.    Park's  Collection,  p.  116. 


234       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

This  theory  teaches  that  Christ's  sufferings — the 
atonement  which  he  made — do  not  satisfy  distributive 
justice ;  that  form  of  justice  which  demands  an  exact 
penalty  for  each  specific  sin.  It  holds  that  the 
saints  in  heaven  are  still  subject  to  the  claims  of  a 
broken  law  and  that  God  might  at  any  moment  drive 
any  one  of  them  or  all  of  them  from  his  presence, 
and,  without  the  least  injustice,  sentence  them  to 
eternal  punishment.  Thus  stands  and  ever  will  stand 
the  account  of  distributive  justice  with  Peter  and 
Paul,  with  every  saint  Catholic  or  Protestant.  The 
theory  holds,  however,  that  general  justice  is  fully 
satisfied  by  the  death  of  Christ.  By  general  justice 
is  meant  regard  for  the  public  good.  When  the 
interests  of  the  universe  are  maintained,  sin  is  made  to 
appear  sinful,  righteousness  is  rewarded,  deterrents 
from  wrong-doing  are  applied  in  their  fullest  force, 
and  encouragements  to  right-doing  are  proclaimed 
and  made  practical,  then  it  is  supposed  that  all  is 
done  which  can  be  done  for  the  good  of  the  universe, 
or,  in  other  words,  general  justice  is  fully  maintained ; 
distributive  justice  is  indeed  passed  over  unsatisfied, 
but  public  justice  can  ask  no  more  than  it  receives. 

This  theory  of  the  atonement  does  not  teach  that 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  as  great  as  those  of  the 
redeemed  would  have  been,  had  the  penalty  been 
executed  upon  them,  but  that  they  were  great  enough 
to  produce  the  effect  upon  intelligent  beings  which 
would  have  been  produced  by  the  actual  infliction 
of  the  full  penalty  in    the   natural    course  of  events. 

There  are  those  who  hold  that  Christ,  because 
of  the  infinity  of  his   nature,  suffered  more  than  the 


VIEW  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  235 

entire  race  could  suffer  in  eternal  perdition,  but 
the  New  England  view  rejects  this  and  main- 
tains that  the  dignity  of  the  divine  person  is  to  be 
taken  into  consideration  in  estimating  the  effect  of 
his  humiliation  and  death,  and  that  not  merely  physical 
pain,  but  mental  anguish,  sorrow  and  grief  are  to  be 
taken  into  the  account. 

It  is  further  maintained  that  it  is  not  the  sum 
of  suffering  but  the  public  effect  of  it  which  is  to  be 
the  standard  of  judgment.  The  punishment  of  the 
wicked,  while  it  manifests  the  wrath  of  God,  does 
not  produce  so  definite  an  effect  as  is  produced  by 
the  death  of  Christ.  No  one  knows  precisely  the 
estimate  which  God  puts  upon  the  eternal  punish- 
ment of  the  sinner,  but  the  infliction  of  pain  upon 
his  Son  is  susceptible  of  a  clearer  interpretation,  and 
is  overwhelmingly  impressive  even  if  the  severity  be 
not  the  utmost  possible.      Burge  says : 

"  It  is  plain  that  their  misery,  ( the  misery  of  sin- 
ning men)  which  would  have  resulted  from  the  exe- 
cution of  the  law,  would  have  been  an  evil  in  his 
view,  (the  view  of  God  )  great  in  proportion^  to  the 
strength  of  his  benevolence.  Of  course  this  evil 
must  appear  to  other  beings,  great  in  proportion  to 
their  apprehension  of  the  strength  of  his  benevolence. 
But  the  strength  of  God's  benevolence  towards  sin- 
ners never  could  have  been  manifested  to  the  degree 
in  which  it  now  appears,  if  the  penalty  of  the  law 
had  been  executed.  For  it  is  only  in  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  for  sinners  that  divine  love  appears  in  its 
glorious  fulness. '' 

From  these  considerations  Burge  infers : 

"It  is  not  necessary  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ 


236        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

should  be,  in  themselves  considered,  so  great  an  evil 
in  the  view  of  God,  as  the  misery  of  all  mankind 
would  have  been.  It  is  sufficient  if  God  show  as 
much  respect  to  his  law,  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
as  he  would  have  done  by  the  execution  of  the  pen- 
alty on  mankind."  ^ 

Thus  the  sufferings  of  Christ  having  greater  power 
of  manifestation  than  those  of  men  may  be  propor- 
tionately less  in  amount. 

The  New  England  theory  has  sometimes  been 
called  the  Benevolence  theory,  but  the  term  does  not 
describe  it  with  accuracy.  It  is  not  included  in 
the  human  idea  of  benevolence,  nor  has  it  more 
affinity  with  that  idea  than  other  theories,  unless  it 
should  be  claimed  that  benevolence  and  general  jus- 
tice are  equivalent  terms.  It  has  also  been  called 
the  Governmental  theory.  This  is  perhaps  its  best 
designation,  since  it  aims  more  definitely  than  other 
systems  to  show  that  the  honor  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment is  preserved,  while  sin  is  pardoned.  It  has 
sometimes  been  entitled  the  Spectacular  theory,  be- 
cause it  is  a  demonstration  before  the  Universe,  of 
God's  hatred  of  sin.  But  this  is  a  term  adopted  by 
its  opponents, — and  partially  in  ridicule.  There  is 
superficial  fitness  in  the  word  spectacular,  but  it  does 
not  give  any  clue  to  the  content  and  substance  of 
the  theory.  It  has  sometimes  been  identified  with 
the  Grotian  theory,  but  this  affords  no  help  in  as- 
certaining its  true  character.  ^^Grotian^'  needs  expo- 
sition more  than  the  theory  sought  to  be  illustrated 
by  it.      Grotius'  treatise  is  a  defense  of  the  doctrine 

1.    Park's  Collection,  pp.  460,  461. 


VIEW  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  237 

of  satisfaction  against  Socinus  and  has  too  much  of 
the  polemic  in  it  to  admit  of  the  direct  advocacy  of 
a  positive,  formal  theory.  Still  his  thoughts  often 
coincide  closely  with  New  England  views. 

Estimate  of  the  New  England  Theory, 

The  New  England  view  of  the  atonement  has  not 
commended  itself  very  generally  to  theologians,  al- 
though it  has  been  received  with  some  favor  in  Eng- 
land, as  well  as  in  this  country.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  resort  to  it  to  avoid  the  doctrine  of  universal 
salvation,  or  to  avoid  the  doctrine  of  a  limited 
atonement,  or  to  be  able  to  ascribe  the  salvation  of 
man  to  the  grace  of  God.  If  Christ,  by  his  incar- 
nation simply,  is  the  head  of  the  race,  in  such  a  sense 
that  every  man  is  a  part  of  his  body  and  suffers 
with  him,  then  universal  salvation  is  a  natural  in- 
ference, but  men  do  not  become  members  of  Christ^s 
body  by  mere  natural  birth  into  the  human  family, 
it  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  salvation  is  therefore 
limited  to  those  who  believe.  Eev.  John  Murray  and 
Rev.  Joseph  Huntington,  D.  D.,  pastor  in  Coventry, 
Conn.,  as  may  be  seen  from  his  posthiunous  work, 
Calvinism  Improved^  argued  in  favor  of  universal 
salvation  on  metaphysical  grounds  and  from  Scrip- 
ture statements,  but  Calvinists  do  not  admit  that  they 
have  presented  fully  the  satisfaction  view  of  the 
atonement.  And  a  general  atonement,  that  is,  an 
atonement  sufficient  for  all,  is  consistent  with  other 
theories.  The  Synod  of  Dort,  as  is  well  known, 
held  that  all  who  are  addressed  by  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel,  are  earnestly  invited  to  partake  of  Sal- 


238  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

vation.  Professor  A.  A.  Hodge,  of  Princeton,  gives 
the  American  Presbyterian  view  of  this  topic  in  these 
words : 

^^  A  bona  fide  offer  of  the  gospel,  therefore,  is  to 
be  made  to  all  men, —  (1)  because  the  satisfaction 
rendered  to  the  law  is  sufficient  for  all  men,  (2)  be- 
cause it  is  exactly  adapted  to  the  redemption  of  all, 
(3)  because  God  designs  that  whosoever  exercises 
faith  in  Christ  shall  be  saved  by  him.  Thus  the 
atonement  makes  the  salvation  of  every  man  object- 
ively possible.  ^  >i<  >K  Xo  man  is  lost  for  the 
want  of  an  atonement  or  because  there  is  any  other 
barrier  in  the  way  of  his  salvation  than  his  own  most 
free  and  wicked  will.'^  ^ 

Neither  is  the  New  England  Theology  a  special 
exhibition  of  the  grace  of  God.  It  has  been  some- 
times supposed  that  forgiveness  by  a  sovereign  act  is 
a  more  conspicuous  exhibition  of  mercy  than  forgive- 
ness purchased  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  But  grace 
does  not  begin  where  the  atonement  leaves  off,  the 
entire  scheme  of  salvation  is  a  scheme  of  grace.  It 
is  manifested  through  the  atonement.  Grace  is  a 
system  carried  into  effect  by  the  divine  powers,  it 
combines  into  a  unity  the  process  of  redemption,  and 
is  not  adequately  represented  by  the  separate  and  in- 
dividual acts  by  which  each  believer  is  pardoned. 

Again,  there  is  something  incongruous  in  the 
thought  that  the  atonement  is  made  for  holy,  not 
sinful  beings.  We  connect  w4th  it  the  ideas  of 
sacrifice,  expiation,  propitiation.  We  have  the  feel- 
ing that  it  is  guilt  which    demands  atonement,  and 

1.    Outlines  of  Theology,  p.  420, 


VIEW  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  239 

that  the  demand  is  the  more  obviously  just  because 
the  guilt  of  men  is  great.  We  are  accustomed  tc 
think  of  sin  and  the  atonement  as  opposing  forces, 
that  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  destroy  the 
works  of  the  devil.  Sin  is  a  system,  has  a  nature, 
continues  its  existence  by  a  development  of  its 
forces,  and  we  attribute  to  the  scheme  of- grace  a 
resisting  and  overcoming  energy  when  it  comes  in 
collision  with  sin ;  it  furnishes  a  basis  for  the  par- 
don of  past  sin  and  the  repression  of  its  power  in 
the  future.  The  governmental  theory  makes  the 
atonement  simply  a  guard  against  the  dangers  be- 
falling innocent  beings  from  the  pardon  of  sin. 
Those  who  are  now  living  lives  of  holiness  may, 
it  is  said,  if  they  see  sin  freely  pardoned,  look 
upon  it  as  a  small  evil,  and  themselves  yield  to  its 
temptations.  God  therefore,  for  their  sake,  makes 
an  impressive  demonstration  of  its  odiousness  in  his 
sight,  and  then  pardons  sin  of  his  mere  sovereign 
mercy.  The  atonement  has  no  reference  to  past 
sins,  is  merely  a  guard  against  possible  future  sins. 
Such  a  scheme  makes  the  Father  the  Saviour  of  sin- 
ners and  Christ  the  Saviour  of  the  Father's  reputa- 
tion. Christ  does  no  doubt  fulfill  this  latter  office, 
but,  it  is  generally  held,  by  fulfilling  the  former 
also.  The  inquiry  might  here  be  raised,  moreover, 
whether  there  is  sufficient  evidence  that  holy  beings 
will  ever  tire  of  their  holiness  and  have  such  long- 
ings for  a  life  of  sin  as  to  furnish  basis  for  a  theory 
of  atonement. 

It   may  be    further  remarked   that    this    govern- 
mental theory  is  not  developed  from  any  central  idea. 


240       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

does  not  represent  anything  belonging  positively  to 
the  process  of  renewing  man's  nature,  and  is  not 
specially  favored  by  Scriptural  expressions.  It  has 
the  appearance  of  being  made  up  of  the  fragments 
of  an  older  and  a  larger  scheme.  The  satisfaction 
theory  consists  of  two  parts, — the  effect  of  Christ's 
death,  and  the  effect  of  his  obedience.  It  teaches 
that  by  his  sufferings  and  death  he  satisfied  the 
law  of  God,  taking  upon  himself  the  punishment  of 
our  sins.  He  became  our  substitute  and  died 
a  sacrifice  in  our  behalf.  On  this  ground 
our  sins  are  forgiven.  The  New  England  theory 
presents  the  same  result  as  being  the  effect 
of  the  atonement,  and  in  terms  borrowed  from 
the  scheme  of  satisfaction,  but  it  explains  the 
terms  as  figurative.  It  says  :  "  Christ  was  not 
our  substitute  before  the  law,  but  the  result 
is  as  if  he  had  been ;  he  did  not  receive  pun- 
ishment, but  the  result  is  as  if  he  had  received 
it;  he  did  not  make  a  compensation  for  our 
sins,  but  the  result  is  as  if  he  had  made  it,  for 
he  removed  an  obstacle  to  our  pardon."  Dr. 
Bushnell,  in  criticising  this  theory,  remarks  that 
its  advocates  in  arguing  in  its  favor,  imply  and 
rest  upon  the  old  doctrine  of  substitution  and 
punishment.  This  same  almost  covert  adherence 
to  the  old  doctrine  appears  in  the  unsettled  views 
among  New  England  theologians  concerning 
the  legitimate  effect  of  the  atonement  and  the 
office  to  be  accorded  to  Christ's  obedience.  A 
few  citations  will  illustrate  their  differences.  Em- 
mons says : 


VIEW  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  241 

'^Forgiveness  is  the  only  favor  which  God  be- 
stows upon  men,  upon  Christ's  account/'  ^ 

Burge  says : 

"If  the  view  which  has  been  given  of  the  neces- 
sity of  atonement,  in  order  to  the  pardon  of  sinners 
be  correct,  it  appears  evident  that  they  may  be  ad- 
mitted to  heaven,  as  well  as  pardoned  on  account  of 
the  suiferings  of  Christ.'' ^ 

Smalley  says : 

"Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  to  every  one  that 
believeth,  as  believers,  and  they  only,  are  delivered 
from  the  curse  and  entitled  to  eternal  life,  through 
his  atonement  and  righteousness."  ^ 

Maxcy  says : 

"  The  obedience  of  Christ,  therefore,  as  it  virtually 
condemned  sin,  and  expressed  his  approbation  of  the 
law,  so  as  to  establish  its  authority  as  a  rule  of  right- 
eousness, appears  to  constitute  an  essential,  though 
not  the  principal  part  of  the  atonement."^ 

Dr.  Griffin  made  an  elaborate  attempt  to  unite  all 
parties  in  their  views  upon  this  subject.  He  called 
the  blood  of  Christ  the  lower  ransom  by  which  sin- 
ners may  be  delivered  from  death,  and  the  blood  and 
merit  of  Christ  a  higher  ransom  by  which  a  title  to 
eternal  life  is  given.  ^ 

Thus  the  New  England  theory  does  not  seem  to 
be  a  complete  and  well-rounded  scheme.  It  does 
not  unite  devout  and  earnest  Christians,  nor  does   it 

1.    Works  V,  pp.  44,  57.  2,    Park's  Collection,  p. 509. 

8.    Ibid.,  p.  75.  4.    Ibid.,  p.  100.  5.    Ibid.,  p.  144. 


242        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

unite  cautious,  philosophical  thinkers  either  on  the 
matter  or  the  result  of  the  atonement.  It  has,  how- 
ever, been  earnestly  maintained  by  many  New  Eng- 
land men,  and  has  been  affirmed  to  be  of  all  schemes 
the  most  Scriptural  and  the  one  most  in  accord  with 
common  sense.  This  may  be  said  to  be  the  position 
which  was  accorded  to  it  by  those  in  the  Hopkin- 
sian  succession  until  it  fell  under  the  criticism  of 
E-ev.  Dr.  Horace  Bushnell,  of  Hartford. 

His  speculations  belong  to  a  later  date  than  those 
which  w^e  have  been  considering,  followed  after,  and 
were  perhaps  in  part  suggested  by  the  New  Haven 
discussions  to  which  we  are  to  give  attention,  but  they 
stand  so  wholly  by  themselves,  that  we  may  introduce 
them  here  by  anticipation  and  connect  them  with  the 
theme  to  which  they  are  closely  allied. 

II. 

THE  MORAL  INFLUENCE  THEORY  OF  THE 
ATONEMENT. 

Dr.  BushnelPs  treatment  of  this  subject  made  so 
deep  an  impression,  that  the  theory  he  advocated  is 
often  designated  by  his  name,  both  in  this  country 
and  in  Great  Britain.  It  is,  however,  more  properly 
named  the  Moral  Theory  or  the  Moral  Influence 
Theory.  He  considered  the  atonement  not  the  re- 
moval of  a  bar  simply,  but  an  efficient  reconciling 
force.  He  thought  the  New  England  Theory,  there- 
fore, mechanical  and  weak.  He  could  not  see  how 
the  expression  of  God's  disapprobation  of  sin  through 
the  sufferings  of  Christ    prepared  the   way  for  the 


MOKAL  INFLUENCE  THEOEY.  243 

pardon  of  the  transgressor.  He  denied  that  the 
death  of  Christ,  expressed  an  abhorrence  of  sin,  and 
affirmed  that,  if  it  did,  the  abhorrence  would  be  of 
no  avail  towards  pardon.      He  says: 

*^  To  put  forward  an  expression,  therefore,  of  God's 
abhorrence  to  sin,  as  a  substitute  for  justice,  is  to  give 
it  the  weakest  possible  substitute.  If  the  abhorrence 
could  be  shown  keeping  company  with  justice,  and 
justice  with  it,  there  would  be  no  deficiency,  but  to 
make  a  governmental  sanction  out  of  abhorrence 
itself,  and  publish  a  free  forgiveness  to  sin,  on  the 
gromid  of  it,  is  to  make  forgiveness  safe  by  a  much 
less  positive  and  weaker  way  of  handling,  than  for- 
giveness itself.  All  doubt  on  this  point  ought  to  be 
forever  ended,  by  simply  asking  what  kind  of  figure, 
as  regards  efficiency,  any  government  of  the  world 
would  make,  dropping  off  its  punishments  and  sub- 
stituting abhorrences.    ^ 

He  held  that  the  advocates  of  the  theory  them- 
selves unconsciously  fortify  their  theory  by  outside 
aids. 

"  It  will  be  found  accordingly,  if  the  language  of 
those  who  take  up  this  abhorrence  theory  is  carefully 
watched,  that  they  have  a  latent  reference  back  always 
to  Christ,  as  being  in  some  penal  condition,  without 
which  our  sin  is  no  way  concerned  with  his  suffering, 
or  his  suffering  with  it.^'^ 

Dr.  Bushnell  is  equally  decisive  in  his  rejection  of 
the  satisfaction  theory  as  a  scheme  in  which  the 
terms  are  petrified  and  made  to  serve  for  things. 
He  never  wearies  of  ridiculing  the  idea  that  the   in- 

1.    Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I,  pp.  3G7,  368.  2.    Ibid.,  I,  p.  3G0. 


244       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

nocent  can  take  the  place  of  the  guilty  before  the 
law  and  acquire  a  superfluous  merit  which  can  be 
imputed  to  those  whose  place  he  takes.  Still,  there 
are  certain  affinities  between  each  of  these  theories 
and  his  own.  He  believes  that  Christ  maintained 
the  law  in  honor,  and  in  a  certain  sense  he  teaches  the 
doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness.  He  speaks  of 
Christ's  obedience  unto  death  as  ^^  covering  the  law 
thus  with  its  original  honor  and  breathing  God's 
everlasting  love  into  our  fallen  desecrated  nature.'' ^ 
The  view  which  he  set  up  in  opposition  to  these 
theories,  though  not  a  development  of  either,  is  worthy 
of  a  brief  notice  as  finding  much  favor  in  New  Eng- 
land, and  displacing  to  some  extent  its  peculiar  theory. 
He  spent  much  time  in  settling  his  views  on  this 
question,  and  his  speculations  must  for  this  reason, 
be  of  interest  in  his  own  State  and  the  neighboring 
States.  In  the  year  1848,  he  addressed  the  Divinity 
School,  in  Harvard  University,  on  this  subject.  He 
says  in  the  introduction  of  the  address  that  this  theme 
was  chosen  because  he  had  just  emerged  from  a  state 
of  protracted  suspense,  or  mental  conflict,  in  reference 
to  it.  In  1866,  he  published  an  elaborate  work  on 
Vicarioics  Sactifice.  Eight  years  later,  moved  "by 
the  unexpected  arrival  of  fresh  light,"  he  published 
his  Forgiveness  and  Law,  as  a  supplement,  in  part  a 
modification  of  the  former  work.  These  two  vol- 
umes are  now  published  under  the  title  of  the  former. 
The  second  volume  does  not  differ  essentially  from  the 
preceding  one,  except  that  it  emphasizes  the  self- 
propitiation  of  God  by  his  vicarious  sacrifice   in    in- 

1.    Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I,  p.  320. 


MOKAL  INFLUENCE  THEORY.  245 

curring  suffering  for  the  sinner^s  sake.  The  result 
of  this  twenty-five  years'  study  was  the  moral  theory 
of  the  atonement.  Only  the  salient  features  of  it 
will  be  noticed.  He  makes  atonement  a  change  in 
us,  "a  change  by  which  we  are  reconciled  to  God. 
Propitiation  is  an  objective  conception,  by  which  that 
change,  taking  place  in  us,  is  spoken  of  as  occurring 
representatively  in  God.'^^ 

The  modified  view  on  the  latter  point  removes  the 
representative  idea,  and  makes  the  propitiation  an 
eternal  fact, 

"The  transactional  matter  of  Christ's  life  and 
death  is  a  specimen  chapter,  so  to  speak,  of  the  in- 
finite book  tliat  records  the  eternal  going  on  of  God's 
blessed  nature  wdthin.  Being  made  in  liis  image,  we 
are  able  to  see  his  moral  dispositions,  always  forging 
their  forgivenesses,  under  the  reactions  of  endurance 
and  sacrifice,  as  we  do  ours.  And  this  is  the  eter- 
nal story  of  which  Christ  shows  us  but  a  single  leaf."  ^ 

He  makes  justification  a  moral  act  by  which  the 
character  is  renewed.  He  includes  in  it  regenera- 
tion but  not  sanctification.  The  old  theology  makes 
justification  a  forensic  act,  not  changing  the  charac- 
ter of  the  justified  one  but  merely  his  standing 
before  the  law,  .he  is  acquitted,  not  made  personally 
righteous.  Dr.  Bushnell  considered  this  an  absurd 
and  a  demoralizing  doctrine.  He  argues  very  earn- 
estly that  the  word  justify,  as  used  in  the  Scriptures, 
never  means  to  pronounce  just  or  treat  as  just,  but 
always  means  to  make  just,  to  rectify  in  moral  char- 
acter. 

1.    Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I,  p.  523.  2.    Ibid.,  II,  p.  60. 


246  NEW   ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

"In  Christian  justification  there  is  no  reference 
of  thought  whatever  to  the  satisfaction  of  God's 
retributive  justice,  or  to  any  acquittal  passed  on 
ffuilty  men,  because  the  score  of  their  account  with 
God's  justice  has  been  made  even  by  the  sufferings 
of  Christ.  The  justification  spoken  of  is  a  moral 
affair,  related  only  to  faith  in  the  subject,  and  the 
righteousness  of  God,  operative  in  or  throu2:h  his 
faith.''  1 

The  key  to  Bushnell's  scheme  is  faith.  He  agrees 
with  other  theologians  as  to  the  nature  of  faith  but 
attributes  to  it  a  different  relation  to  justification. 
He  makes  it  not  merely  a  necessary  condition  of 
justification  but  the  medium  through  which  the 
divine  forces  effect  justification.      He  says  : 

"  The  real  faith  is  this,  H<  *  *  the  trusting  of 
one's  self  over,  sinner  to  Saviour,  to  be  in  him,  and 
of  him,  and  new  charactered  by  him ;  because  it  is 
only  in  this  way  that  the  power  of  Christ  gets  oppor- 
tunity to  work.  So  the  sinner  is  justified,  and  the 
justification  is  a  most  vital  affair;  Hhe  justification 
of  life.'  The  true  account  of  it  is,  that  Jesus,  coming 
into  the  world,  with  all  God's  righteousness  upon 
him,  declaring  it  to  guilty  souls  in  all  the  manifold 
evidences  of  his  life  and  passion,  wins  their  faith, 
and  by  that  faith  they  are  connected  again  with  the 
life  of  God,  and  filled  and  overspread  with  his 
righteousness."  ^ 

The  connection  of  the  human  soul  with  the  life 
of  God  through  faith  is,  with  Bushnell,  the  essential 
element  of  salvation.  This  union  with  God  is 
effected  by  divine  power,  for  no  man  is  able  "  to 
cast   off  sin  and   renew   himself,"  yet  is  effected  by 

1.    Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I,  p,  415.         2.    Ibid.,  I,  p.  435. 


MORAL  INFLUENCE  THEORY.  24T 

moral  or  persuasive  forces  wielded  by  the  incarnate 
Saviour.  Describing  the  beginning  of  the  new  life, 
he  says  : 

"What  they  (Christians)  so  much  feel  and  have 
coming  in  upon  their  moral  sensibility,  in  ways  so 
piercing,  is  the  law  of  duty,  glorified  by  suffering 
and  the  visibly  divine  sacrifice  of  the  cross."  ^ 

The  theory  of  Dr.  Bushnell,  like  the  satisfaction 
theory,  and  unlike  the  New  England  theory,  repre- 
sents the  atonement  as  a  power  meeting  and  grap- 
pling with  sin  and,  on  the  sinner's  compliance  with 
certain  conditions,  overcoming  it.  .  On  the  other 
hand,  like  the  New  England  theory  and  unlike  the 
satisfaction  theory,  it  represents  the  atonement  as 
effective  in  the  realm  of  moral  considerations  and 
through  motives  addressed  to  the  intellect  not  in  the 
realm  of  forensic  processes  and  judicial  decisions. 
He  speaks  of  his  theory  as  the  moral  theory,  and  is 
aware  that  theories  so  characterized  have  long  been 
known,  yet  considers  his  different  from  those  earlier 
presented,  which  have  been  deservedly  rejected. 
They  have  taught  that  Christ  was  an  example  sim- 
ply, or  that  he  came  to  remove  prejudice  against 
God,  or  that  his  mission  was  to  restore  a  sound 
morality  to  the  world,  while  his  retains  the  law  in 
its  full  force  and  accepts  the  doctrines  of  di\dne 
wrath,  judicial  condemnation  and  eternal  punishment. 
Of  other  moral  theories  he  says : 

"The  inherent  weakness  of  all  such  versions  of 
the  gospel  is,  that  they  look  to  see  it  operate  by 
mere  benignities, — something  is  either  to  be  sho^vn  or 

1.    Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I.  p.  302. 


248  ^'EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

done,  that  is  good  enoua^li  to  win  tlie  world.  The 
one  fatal  defect  that  vitiates  all  such  conceptions  and 
puts  them  under  a  doom  of  failure,  is  that  they 
make  up  gospel  which  has  no  law  side  of  authority, 
penal  enforcement,  rectoral  justice;  nothing  to  take 
hold  of  an  evil  mind  at  the  point  of  its  indifference 
or  aversion  to  good,  nothing  to  impress  conviction, 
or  shake  the  confidence,  or  stop  the  boldness  of 
transgression.^'  ^ 

Bushnell  from  the  first  connected  the  severe  and 
the  tragic  with  our  salvation  through  Christ.  In 
his  address  at  Cambridge  in  1848,  he  says: 

"AYe  see  him  (Christ)  in  fact,  descending  below 
our  malignity,  that  it  may  break  itself  across  his 
Divine  Patience.  He  outreaches,  by  his  love,  the 
measure  of  our  animosities — the  wrong  will  in  us, 
all  the  malignities  of  our  devilish  passion  feel  them- 
selves outdone.  Evil  falls  back  from  its  apparent 
victory,  spent,  exhausted,  conscious,  as  it  never  was 
before,  of  its  impotence.'^  ^ 

This  result  follows  from  Christ's  method  of  meet- 
ing the  malign  spirit  that  bursts  forth  in  a  storm  of 
deadly  violence  against  his  person,  and  from  his 
patience  in  bearing  the  concentrated  venom  of  his 
crucifiers. 

This  theory  of  Bushnell  has  been  forcibly  criti- 
cised by  Dr.  Dale  in  his  treatise  on  the  atone- 
ment, and  by  Dr.  S.  D.  Cochrane  in  his  work  on 
Moral  Government  and  the  Atonement.  His  expo- 
sition of  the  term  justification,  as  used  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, receives  little  favor  from  commentators  and  is 
entirely  rejected  by  some  of  the  latest.  ^ 

1.    Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I,  p.  399.  2,    God  in  Christ,  p.  2^. 

3.    See  Sanday  on  Eomans,  p.  28. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

LATER   DISCUSSIONS  —  NEW   HA  VEX  THEOLOGY. 

New  England  Theology  did  not  take  into  its  em- 
brace any  new  doctrines  after  Dr.  Edwards,  in  1785, 
made  his  clear  and  permanently  adopted  statements 
concerning  the  atonement.  The  theologizing  tendency 
of  the  New  England  mind,  however,  by  no  means 
ceased  at  that  time;  on  the  contrary  some  of  the 
warmest  discussions  were  subsequent  to  that  date,  but 
the  aim  was  either  to  defend  the  traditional  theology 
or  to  give  more  discriminating  expression  to  doctrines 
already  under  discussion.  Unitarianism,  New  Haven 
theology  and  the  publications  of  Dr.  Bushnell,  will 
at  once  suggest  themselves  in  this  connection.  What 
has  within  the  last  few  years  been  known  as  the  new 
theology  is  not  sufficiently  developed  to  be  assigned 
its  exact  place  in  religious  history.  Dr.  BushnelFs 
various  essays  and  treatises  related  to  a  large  num- 
ber of  theological  topics,  but  have  not  awakened  per- 
manent interest  except  upon  the  atonement.  His 
views  on  this  theme  have,  by  anticipation,  been 
already  spoken  of.  The  Unitarian  movement  was 
originally  directed  against  the  evangelical  system  as 
a  whole,  though  the  Trinity  was  made  the  prominent 


250        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

topic  of  dispute.  The  orthodox  contention  at  this 
point  was  simply  a  defence  of  the  traditional  faith, 
with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son.  This  discussion  led, 
however,  incidentally  to  a  review,  at  a  later  date, 
of  some  points  of  Hopkinsianism  and  may  be  briefly 
noticed. 

The  tendencies  to  liberalism  appeared  early  in  the 
18th  century,  perhaps  late  in  the  17th,  and  were 
fostered  by  the  writings  of  Whiston,  Taylor  and 
other  English  authors  whose  names  have  already  been 
given.  The  contrast  between  the  liberals  and  con- 
servatives was  more  clearly  brought  to  view  by  the 
Great  Awakening  of  1740.  After  much  uncertainty 
as  to  the  attitude  of  different  churches  and  different 
men,  an  irreconcilable  conflict  was  recognized  in  the 
election  of  Eev.  Henry  Ware,  as  Hollis  Professor  of 
Divinity  in  Harvard  College,  in  1805.  The  loss  of 
this  institution  to  the  conservatives,  now  known  as  the 
Orthodox,  led  to  the  founding  of  Andover  Theological 
Seminary,  in  1808.  The  increasing  diversity  of  senti- 
ment between  the  parties,  found  an  emphatic  expres- 
sion in  a  sermon  of  Dr.  Channing,  preached  at 
Baltimore,  in  1819,  at  the  ordination  of  Jared  Sparks. 
This  sermon  called  out  a  reply  from  Professor  Stuart 
of  Andover  Seminary,  and  later  a  series  of  letters  from 
Dr.  Woods,  of  the  same  institution,  addressed  to  Uni- 
tarians. To  these  letters.  Dr.  Ware  of  Harvard, 
replied  in  a  series  of  letters  to  Trinitarians  and  Cal- 
vinists.  A  reply  from  Dr.  Woods,  called  out  an  an- 
swer from  Dr.  Ware,  in  response  to  which  Dr. 
Woods,  published   his   third   reply   as  "  Eemarks   on 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  251 

Dr.  Ware's  Answer/'  This  discussion  between  Woods 
and  Ware,  took  a  broad  range,  but  the  question  of 
depravity  was  made  prominent,  especially  native  de- 
pravity and  its  relation  to  the  justice  of  God.  Through 
these  publications  New  England  was  made  still  the 
arena  of  theological  debate  and  Hopkinsianism  was 
kept  prominently  before  the  minds  of  the  people. 
Some  of  the  positions  taken  by  Dr.  AVoods  were  not 
fully  accepted  in  certain  quarters  by  the  Orthodox, 
and  it  was  vaguely  reported  that  in  some  respects, 
preference  was  given  to  Dr.  Ware.  Three  or  four 
years  elapsed,  however,  after  the  close  of  this  discus- 
sion, before  the  rise  of  any  new  theological  agitation. 
After  this  brief  rest  came  the  most  prolonged  of  the 
New  England  controversies.  Before  noticing  the 
items  of  the  discussion,  it  will  be  of  interest  to  ad- 
vert briefly  to  two  of  the  disputants  who  were 
specially  prominent,  not  only  in  the  debate,  but  in 
New  England  ecclesiasticism  in  general. 

Leonard  Woods  was  born  in  Princeton,  Mass., 
June  19,  1774,  and  died  at  Andover  in  1854.  He 
was  for  several  years  the  most  conspicuous  theolo- 
gian, among  the  orthodox,  in  New  England.  He 
was  graduated  at  Harvard  College  in  1796.  After 
a  few  months'  teaching  and  several  months'  study  of 
theology,  he  was  licensed  to  preach  in  1798.  In 
November  of  that  year  he  was  settled  as  pastor  at 
Newbury,  Mass.  He  at  once  assumed  a  prominent 
position  among  the  ministers  of  the  State.  His 
counsel  and  assistance  were  sought  by  leading  theo- 
logians; he  became  the  associate  and  friend  of  the 
most  prominent  citizens  of  the   region  in  which    he 


252        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

lived.  He  seems  to  have  had  remarkable  facility  in 
acquiring  and  retaining  the  esteem  and  confidence  of 
persons  of  culture  and  sound  judgment.  In  1808 
he  was  appointed  Professor  of  Christian  Theology  at 
Andover.  His  labors  in  his  professorship  met  with 
cordial  and  enthusiastic  acceptance  for  many  years. 
He  resigned  his  office  in  1846.  His  mind  was 
acute  and  comprehensive.  He  was  considered  an 
adroit  controversialist.  His  movements  in  conduct- 
ing a  discussion  were  deliberate  and  methodical,  his 
treatment  of  a  theme  prolix,  but  he  never  lost  sight 
of  his  main  object ;  never  was  diverted  from  his 
course  by  any  irritation  or  annoyances.  His  chief 
characteristics  were  an  absolute  reliance  on  the  Scrip- 
tures as  final  authority,  an  absence  of  all  ambition 
to  go  beyond  the  bounds  of  legitimate  knowledge  in 
his  speculations,  a  cautious,  steady  and  sure-footed 
pursuit  of  the  object  in  view.  He  was  a  Hopkin- 
sian,  but  irenic  in  temper  and  appreciative  of  Old 
School  Theology. 

Nathaniel  W.  Taylor,  D.  D.,  was  born  in  New 
Milford,  Conn.,  June  23,  1786,  was  graduated  at 
Yale  College  in  1807,  became  pastor  of  the  First 
Congregational  Church  in  New  Haven  in  1811,  was 
appointed  Professor  of  Didactic  Theology  in  Yale 
College  in  1822  and  remained  in  that  office  till  his 
death  in  1858.  He  was  the  chief  advocate  and  de- 
fender of  the  New  Haven  Theology, — often  called 
Taylorism, — though  he  had  able  coadjutors  in  Rev. 
Chauncey  A.  Goodrich,  D.  D.,  (born  1790,  died 
1860)  and  Rev.  Eleazar  T.  Fitch,  (born  1791,  died 
1871.) 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  263 

As  a  speculative  theologian  he  stands  in  decided 
contrast  to  Dr.  Woods.  The  bent  of  his  mind  was 
strongly  towards  metaphysical  investigation.  He 
loved  to  explore  the  mysteries  of  theology  and  phil- 
osophy, and  sought  to  enlarge  the  area  of  clear  and 
definite  knowledge.  He  suggested  modifications  of 
the  current  doctrines  of  depravity,  of  responsibility, 
of  the  divine  permission  of  sin,  and  of  regeneration. 
His  speculations  concerning  the  Trinity  and  justifi- 
cation are  instructive  but  are  not  presented  in  a 
systematic  form.  He  did  not  in  his  writings  keep 
his  readers  steadily  in  mind  as  Dr.  Woods  did,  but 
allowed  liimself  to  be  diverted  from  the  main  line  of 
his  argument  by  glimpses  of  accessory  truths. 
Hence  it  w^as  difficult  to  comprehend  and  analyze 
his  arguments.  He  often  complained  of  being  mis- 
understood and  misrepresented.  He  once  said  be- 
fore his  class,  that  no  one  would  understand  him  till 
his  book  was  published,  and  that  that  w^ould  be  so 
large  that  no  one  would  read  it.  Though  he 
adopted,  perhaps  originated,  certain  sententious 
phrases,  such  as  ^  certainty  with  power  to  the  con- 
trary,' '  he  can  if  he  will,  and  he  can  if  he  won't,' 
yet  the  working  of  his  mind  was  ever  to  larger  and 
broader  expansions  of  view  without  closing  up  his 
lines  of  thought  to  meet  at  a  definite  and  appointed 
goal ;  his  great  work  on  Moral  Government  unfolds 
like  an  apocalypse  and  it  is  difficult  to  find  the  con- 
clusion ;  his  lectures  on  Revealed  Theology,  though 
prolonged  in  some  instances,  are  at  once  complex 
and  fragmentary.  It  is  sometimes  amusing  to  follow 
out  his  deductions  from   what  he  considers  the  erro- 


254       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

neous  views  of  his  opponents  by  which  he  makes 
them  logically  Pelagians,  Arminians,  Antinomians, 
Infidels,  Atheists,  etc.  As  would  be  inferred  from 
such  characteristics,  he  was  one  of  the  most  stimula- 
ting teachers  of  his  day,  but  his  followers  never 
formed  a  compact  sect  or  party.  It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  gather  an  ethical  school  around  such  a 
nucleus  as  the  following :  (President  Porter's  Expo- 
sition of  Dr.  Taylor's  Estimate  of  Virtue.) 

"Dr.  Taylor  would  say  that  ideal  good,  conform- 
ity to  which  constitues  moral  goodness,  can  only  be 
known  by  the  highest  subjective  satisfaction  that 
comes  when  the  soul  fastens  on  the  best  objects  by 
which  the  univ^erse  can  occupy  its  energies.''  ^ 

It  is  not  necessary  to  take  up  all  the  points  in 
dispute  during  the  debate  over  the  New  Haven 
theology.  Its  main  features  can  be  presented  by 
themselves,  and  more  briefly  than  a  historical  narra- 
tive would  permit.  A  brief  glance  at  some  of  the 
more  prominent  points  in  the  discussion  will,  how- 
ever, be  of  value  and  will  exhibit  the  earnestness 
and  determination  of  the  parties.  In  1826  Kev.  E. 
T.  Fitch,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Yale  Col- 
lege, preached  two  sermons  which  were  published,  in 
which  he  maintained  that  sin  is  the  act  of  a  moral 
agent,  a  violation  of  a  known  rule  of  duty,  and  that 
no  sin  of  Adam  is  reckoned  to  his  posterity.  The 
term  act  was  used  as  including  permanent  states  of 
the  will,  purposes  of  the  heart.  ^ 

1.  See  article  in  New  Englander,  Vol.  XVIII. 

2.  See  Catastrophe,  by  Crocker,  pp,  116-118. 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  255 

In  1827  The  Christian  Advocate,  edited  by  Dr. 
Green,  published  in  Philadelphia,  contained  a  criti- 
cism, supposed  by  some  to  be  from  Dr.  Alexander, 
on  these  sermons.  In  this  it  was  maintained  that 
the  nature  of  the  soul, — its  state,  or  temper,  or  dis- 
position is  sinful  before  any  voluntary  act  is  put 
forth.  Dr.  Fitch  replied  to  this  criticism  and  re- 
stated his  views.  In  1828  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor 
preached  the  Condo  ad  Clerum  at  New  Haven,  in 
which  he  maintained  that  all  men,  unless  grace  inter- 
vene, commit  sin  in  their  first  and  every  other  moral 
act;  that  sin  is  the  preference  of  the  world  and 
worldly  good  to  the  will  and  glory  of  God;  that  the 
propensity  leading  to  sin  is  not  sinful,  but  that  sin 
is  to  be  traced  to  the  nature  of  man,  not  to  his  cir- 
cumstances. He  insisted,  however,  that  a  corrupt 
nature  does  not  imply  physical  or  constitutional  cor- 
ruption. He  appended  to  the  sermon  the  remark 
that  the  two  following  positions  are  groundless 
assumptions,  viz  :  Sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good,  and,  God  can  prevent  all  sin,  at  least 
the  present  degree  of  sin,  in  a  moral  system.  Rev. 
Joseph  Harvey,  of  Westchester,  Conn.,  criticised  this 
sermon  adversely,  maintaining  that  native  depravity, 
the  cause  of  actual  sin,  is  sinful.  In  1829  Dr. 
Porter  and  Professor  Goodrich  reviewed  the  sermon 
and  the  criticism.  To  this  Mr.  Harvey  replied,  and 
Dr.  Taylor  wrote  a  pamphlet  answering  the  reply. 
The  same  year,  1829,  Dr.  Taylor  wrote  a  series  of 
articles  in  review  of,  rather  suggested  by,  a  work  on 
"  The  Means  of  Regeneration,"  by  Rev.  Gardiner 
Spring,  D.  D.     Dr.   Taylor    maintained   that   sinners 


256       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

may,  and  at  times  do,  use  the  means  of  grace  effectively 
and  not  sinfully.  Dr.  Bennet  Tyler,  then  of  Portland, 
Me.,  published  "Strictures"  on  these  articles,  subject- 
ing them  to  a  thorough  review.  In  1830  Dr. 
Taylor  replied  to  these  strictures.  The  same  year 
Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  published  "  Letters  to  the 
Professor  of  Didactic  Theology  in  Yale  College," 
combating  the  position  of  Dr.  Taylor  that  these  are 
groundless  assumptions,  viz :  that  sin  is  the  necessary 
means  of  the  greatest  good,  and  that  God  can  pre- 
vent sin  in  a  moral  system.  Dr.  Taylor  replied  to 
Dr.  Woods  in  a  long  appendix  to  an  article  on  Dr. 
Bellamy's  theology,  published  in  the  Christian  Spec- 
tator, In  form  this  article  appears  as  from  a  friend 
of  Dr.  Taylor.  In  1832  Dr.  Hawes,  of  Hartford, 
wrote  a  letter  to  Dr.  Taylor  asking  him  to  publish  a 
statement  of  his  theological  views.  Dr.  Taylor 
complied  with  this  request. 

Dr.  Tyler  published  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pil- 
grims— a  Calvinistic  periodical  of  Boston,  1828- 
1833, — an  examination  of  these  views,  agreeing  with 
much  but  dissenting  at  certain  points,  in  an  article 
of  eleven  pages.  Dr.  Taylor  replied  in  an  article  of 
twenty-three  pages.  Dr.  Tyler,  replied  in  article  of 
fifteen  pages,  followed  by  another  of  nineteen  pages. 
Dr.  Taylor  replied  in  December,  in  an  article  of 
twenty-six  pages,  followed  in  January,  1833,  by 
another  of  fourteen  pages,  and  in  February,  by  still 
another  of  twenty  pages.  The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims 
declined  to  publish  further  on  the  subject,  except  that 
it  admitted  a  letter  to  the  editor  from  Dr.  Tyler,  of 
twenty-two  pages,  for  the  sake  of  correcting  certain 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  257 

misrepresentations.  To  this  letter,  Dr.  Taylor  replied, 
in  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Spectator. 
In  1835,  Dr.  Woods  published  his  prize  essay  on 
Total  Depravity,  which  contained  slight  indirect  ref- 
erences to  the  New  Haven  Theology.  In  1837,  Dr. 
Tyler  wrote  a  series  of  eighteen  letters  to  Dr.  John 
Witherspoon,  of  South  Carolina,  which  were  published 
imder  the  title,  "Letters  on  the  Origin  and  Progress 
of  Arminian  views  in  New  England,  from  a  distin- 
guished New  England  minister  to  one  in  the  South. '^ 
These  letters  were  extensively  published  in  the  Pres- 
byterian papers  in  the  Southern  States.  They  deline- 
ate the  progress  of  the  controversy  and  bring 
out  its  main  features.  The  vigorous  criticisms  of 
Dr.  Taylor  from  Presbyterian  sources  do  not  require 
notice  here. 

There  are  two  positions  relating  to  moral  action, 
which  had  to  Dr.  Taylor's  mind,  the  force  of  axiom- 
atic truths,  which  we  should  have  in  mind  in  making 
a  study  of  his  peculiar  theology.  He  attributed  an 
important  place  to  self-love  in  the  formation  of  char- 
acter, and  he  considered  a  choice  between  opposing 
interests  the  only  act  having  moral  quality.  By 
means  of  the  first, — self-love, — he  considered  that  men 
can  by  an  act  without  moral  quality,  enter  on  a 
course  of  life  that  will  entirely  change  their  personal 
character.  With  him,  every  holy  act  was  an  act 
prompted  by  supreme  benevolence,  every  sinful  act, 
one  prompted  by  the  principle  of  selfishness.  But 
he  believed  there  might  be  occasions  when  neither 
of  these  great  principles  were  operative,  when  from 
sudden  impulse  or  a  shock  of  surprise  one  should  be 


258         NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

prompted  to  act  out  of  his  mere  humanity  and  obey 
the  first  suggestions  of  reason  and  common  sense. 
An  act  of  this  kind  is  not  developed  from  one's  char- 
acter, but  is  in  obedience  to  reason  or  the  native 
sensibilities.  Such  an  act,  being  neither  selfish  nor 
benevolent,  is  without  moral  quality,  but  opens  the 
way  to  moral  conduct,  possibly  to  an  entire  change 
of  moral  character,  and  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all 
deeds  known  as  right  or  wrong. 

The  second  point,  that  a  choice  having  moral  qual- 
ity, is  an  elective  preference,  he  insisted  upon  with 
great  earnestness.  It  was  one  of  the  grounds  on 
which  he  was  charged  with  Arminianism. 

Edwards  made  choice  the  settled  desire,  the  fixed 
and  pronounced  pleasure  of  the  man.  His  son  con- 
sidered this  one  of  his  father's  great  merits,  that  he 
had  shown  choice  to  be  spontaneous.  He  put  the 
moral  quality  of  an  act,  accordingly,  in  its  nature, 
not  in  the  cause  which  called  it  into  existence.  The 
Hopkinsians  also  put  the  moral  quality  of  an  act  in 
its  nature,  not  in  its  cause,  though  they  gave  greater 
emphasis  to  the  active  nature  of  sin.  Dr.  Taylor 
made  the  moral  quality  of  an  act  depend  not  only 
upon  the  nature,  that  is,  the  qualities  of  the  act,  but 
also  upon  its  being  an  elective  preference  with  full 
power  to  prefer  the  contrary.  He  made  a  distinc- 
tion between  constitutional  preferences  and  elective 
preferences.  The  former  are  equivalent  to  the  taste 
or  relish,  the  latter  are  choices  in  which  there  is  an 
alternative  which  is  positively  rejected.  He,  how- 
ever, included  among  voluntary  acts,  permanent  states 
of  the  soul,  which  had  their  beginning  in  an  elective 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  259 

preference.  A  worldly  life  he  considered  a  perma- 
nent elective  preference  of  the  world  to  God.  This 
he  sometimes  called  the  selfish  principle.  Still  these 
permanent  states  did  not  constitute  the  choice  in 
specific  instances.  When  a  settled  preference  of  lik- 
ing or  disliking  was  fixed,  the  choice  still  remained 
to  be  made,  and  might  be  in  either  direction.  It 
was  because  of  this  view  that  he  was  charged  with 
Arminianism  and  Pelagianism.  Professor  Fisher  of 
New  Haven  admits  that  this  is  the  Pelagian 
view  of  the  will,  but  still  maintains  that  Dr.  Taylor, 
was  a  Calvinist,  because  he  held  to  the  certainty  of 
choices,  that  is,  that  they  would  always  be  in  accord 
with  one's  pleasure  or  disposition,  notwithstanding 
the  power  to  the  contrary.  His  phrase  was  ^  certainty 
with  power  to  the  contrary.'  And  he  laid  much 
stress  on  the  fact  of  power,  however  it  might  be 
exercised.      He  says: 

"The  mere  fact  that  that  which  gives  us  pleasure 
or  pain  is  ourSj  and  more  especially  that  it  is  ours 
by  production  or  authorship,  is  a  source  of  high,  dis- 
tinct and  peculiar  pleasure  or  pain."^ 

The  points  at  issue  between  the  New  Haven 
theologians  and  their  opponents  were  few,  except  as 
inferences  and  supposed  consequences  were  charged 
by  each  party  upon  the  other.  The  main  topics 
were  depravity  and  the  divine  permission  of  sin. 
The  position  which  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  associates 
took,  was  this:  Sin  is  not  a  propagoied,  essential  prop- 
erty of  the  human  souly  and   siji  is  not   the  necessary 

1.    Moral  Government,  I,  p.  38. 


260       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

means  of  the  greatest  goody  or,  God  does  not  decree 
the  existence  of  sin  because  it  is  necessary  to  the 
perfection  of  the  moral  system.      Dr.  Taylor  said ; 

"These  two  theories  embrace  almost  absolutely 
every  topic  in  what  has  been  called  the  New  Haven 
controversy."  ^ 

We  shall  have  more  clearly  in  mind  the  topics 
that  came  under  debate  in  this  controversy,  if  we 
make  them  four  instead  of  two;  (1)  Human  sin 
does  not  include  any  inherited  disposition.  (2)  Sin 
is  not  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  at 
least  it  has  not  been  proved  to  be.  (3)  Can  God 
prevent  all  sin  in  a  moral  system?  (4)  Regeneration 
is  the  choice  of  the  service  of  God  as  the  highest 
good  from  the  motive  of  self-love  on  the  occasion  of 
the  suspension  of  the  selfish  principle  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  On  the  first  point  he  agreed  with  the  Hop- 
kinsians,  against  the  Old  Calvinists.  The  fifteen 
errors,  which  he  notes,  involved  in  the  doctrine  of 
inherited  sin,  may  be  found  set  forth  in  the  Christian 
Spectator,  for  1832,  pp.,  456-464.  The  topic  has  been 
sufficiently  noticed  under  the  New  England  doctrine 
of  sin.  The  other  three  points  are  anti-Hopkin- 
sian. 

Dr.  Taylor  states  his  view  of  depravity  and  sin 
in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Hawes : 

"  I  believe  that  all  mankind,  in  consequence  of 
the  fall  of  Adam,  are  born  destitute  of  holiness,  and 
are  by  nature  totally  depraved;  in  other  words,  that 
all  men  from  the  commencement  of  moral  agency  do, 

1.    Christian  Spectator,  1833,  p.  492,  and  1833,  p,  657. 


NEW  HAVEX  THEOLOGY.  261 

without  the  interposition  of  divine  grace,  sin,  and 
only  sin,  in  all  their  moral  conduct/' 
,  .  .  "  I  do  not  believe  that  the  nature  of  the  human 
mind,  which  God  creates,  is  itself  sinful,  or  that  sin 
pertains  to  anything  in  the  mind  which  precedes  all 
conscious  mental  exercise  or  action,  and  which  is 
neither  a  matter  of  consciousness  nor  knowledge. 
But  I  do  believe  that  sin  universally  is  no  other 
than  selfishness,  or  a  preference  of  one's  self  to  all 
others — of  some  inferior  good  to  God ;  that  this  vol- 
untary preference  is  a  permanent  principle  of  action 
in  all  the  unconverted  ;  and  that  this  is  sin,  and  all 
that  in  the  Scripture  is  meant  by  sin.''  ^ 

He  thus  makes  sin  the  choice  of  a  less  good,  not 
the  choice  of  a  wrong  as  such.  He  also  makes 
depravity  a  consequence  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  but 
makes  no  attempt  to  explain  the  connection  between 
the  two. 

The  second  and  third  points,  whether  sin  is  the 
necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  and  whether 
God  can  prevent  sin  in  a  moral  system,  were  asso- 
ciated in  the  discussion.  Dr.  Taylor  in  his  replies, 
and  in  defending  himself  against  his  assailants,  stated 
his  position  to  be:  these  propositions  are  groundless 
assumptions.  Those  who  maintain  them  make  posi- 
tive assertions  and  must  prove  them  to  be  true. 
The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  them.  But  in  the 
discussion  he  goes  quite  beyond  this  negative  position 
and  vehemently  opposes  the  propositions  in  question. 
In  the  note  to  the  Concio  ad  Clerum  he  does  this  in 
the  interrogative  form,  but  in  a  way  to  leave  no 
doubt  as  to   his   view.      The  almost  defiant  form  of 

1.    Christian  Spectator,  1832,  pp.  171-173. 


262         NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

his  questions  and  the  marked  disparagement  of  the 
propositions  themselves  clearly  indicate  his  position. 
Dr.  Woods,  in  his  second  letter,  says : 

"Now  from  all  you  have  advanced  on  the  sub- 
ject, I  conclude  that  you  mean  to  hold  the  opposite 
positionSy  namely,  that  sin  is  not  the  necessary  means 
of  the  greatest  good,  and  as  such,  so  far  as  it  exists, 
is  not  on  the  whole  preferable  to  holiness  in  its  stead ; 
and  that  in  a  moral  system,  God  could  not  have 
prevented  all  sin,  nor  the  present  degree  of  it.''  i 

Dr.  Taylor's  view  of  sin  as  a  means  of  good 
may  be  summed  up  in  this  way :  he  denied  that  God 
prefers  sin  to  holiness  under  any  circumstances, 
affirmed  that  God  always  prefers  obedience  to  diso- 
bedience, that  sin  is  never  a  good  under  any  circum- 
stances, that  it  could  not  be  totally  evil  if  it  were 
the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  that  we 
could  not  maintain  the  sincerity  of  God's  promises 
and  commands  if  he  anywhere  preferred  sin  to  holi- 
ness, and  that  we  could  justly  object  to  his  govern- 
ment if  sin  were  a  necessary  element  in  it.  These 
statements  may  be  justified  from  the  note  to  the 
Concio  and  from  many  expressions  in  his  published 
writings,  especially  from  his  elaborate  argument  in 
the  Christian  Spectator  of  1832,  pages  465  to  493. 
He  is  less  aggressive  in  opposing  the  doctrine  that 
God  can  prevent  all  sin  in  a  moral  system,  but  says 
this  has  never  been  proved  and  it  may  be  that  sin 
is  incidental  to  such  a  system.  Sin  must  be  possible 
if  the  system  is  a  moral  one,  and  if  a  man  can  sin 
he  may  sin,  therefore  it  may  be  true  that  God  can- 

1.    Wood's  Works,  IV,  p.  360. 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  263 

not  prevent  all  sin  in  a  moral  system.  This  does 
not  imply  a  limitation  of  God's  power,  for  the  im- 
possibility may  rise  from  the  nature  of  things,  as  it 
is  impossible  that  a  whole  should  be  greater  than  the 
sum  of  its  parts. 

"Does  the  supposition  that  God  could  not  prevent 
sin  in  a  moral  system,  limit  his  power  at  all?  To 
suppose  or  affirm  that  God  cannot  perform  what  is 
impossible  in  the  nature  of  things,  is  not  properly  to 
limit  his  power.  Is  there  then,  the  least  particle  of 
evidence  that  the  entire  prevention  of  sin  in  moral 
beings  is  possible  to  God  in  the  nature  of  things  ? 
If  not,  then  what  becomes  of  the  very  common 
assumption  of  such  a  possibility?'^ 
.  .  .  "Is  there  any  evidence  from  facts?  Facts,  so 
far  as  they  are  known  to  us,  furnish  no  support  to 
the  assmnption,  that  God  could  in  a  moral  system 
prevent  all  sin,  or  even  the  present  degree  of  sin. 
For  w^e  know  of  no  creature  of  God,  whose  holiness 
is  secured  without  the  influence  which  results  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  from  the  existence  of  sin  and 
its  punishment.  How  then,  can  it  be  shown  from 
facts,  that  God  could  secure  any  of  his  moral  crea- 
tures in  holiness  without  this  influence?  ^  *  *  If 
God  could  prevent  all  sin  without  this  influence  why 
has  he  not  done  it  ?"  ^ 

The  New  Haven  theologians  intended  to  retain 
the  advantage  of  a  negative  position  as  to  the  divine 
prevention  of  sin ;  they  said  their  opponents  must 
prove  that  God  can  prevent  it.  Still  they  did  not 
always  confine  themselves  strictly  to  their  chosen 
ground. 

The  following  from  the  Christian  Spectator  of 
1831  is  one  of  their  most  cautious  statements: 

1,    Note  to  the  Concio,  11  and  13. 


264         NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

"We  have  never  said  that  any  reason  for  the 
existence  of  sin  can  be  proved  by  man  to  be  the 
true  reason.  The  most  we  have  ventured  to  say  is, 
that  if  we  suppose  it  possibley — not  certain  or  estab- 
lished as  true,  that  sin  is  an  evil  incidental  (in 
respect  to  the  divine  prevention)  to  the  best  system 
of  moral  influence,  the  subject  would  be  exempt  from 
difficulties  and  objections.  *  *  *  But  have  we, 
in  saying  this,  affirmed  that  sin  is  thus  incidental? 
Nothing  like  it.  We  have  simply  placed  the  burden 
of  proving  the  contrary  upon  the  objector.^^  ^ 

But  in  the  same  periodical  for  1832,  in  an  article 
attributed  to  Professor  Fitch,  we  find,  of  three  pos- 
sible answers,  (as  is  asserted)  to  the  question  how 
good  comes  through  evil,  this  is  preferred :  Evils 
arise  from  the  nature  of  a  moral  universe  and  are  reg- 
ulated for  the  best  results.  This  is  affirmed  to  be 
possible  and  probable.  The  probabilities  in  favor  of 
the  position  are  said  to  be: 

(1)  "Causes  here  originating  sin  must  be  present 
in  any  possible  universe  of  moral  beings'^,  (2)  "Sin 
in  the  present  universe  has  originated  from  such 
causes  in  kind  as  are  inseparable  from  the  existence 
of  moral  agents,  notwithstanding  God  has  put  forth 
no  act  for  the  sake  of  leading  his  subjects  into  sin 
rather  than  holiness'',  (3)  "Sin  in  the  present  uni- 
verse has  originated  from  such  causes  in  kind  as  are 
inseparable  from  the  existence  of  moral  agents,  not- 
withstanding God  has  so  ordered  his  providence  over 
it  as  to  secure  the  highest  possible  good."^ 

Dr.  Woods,  in  his  letters  to  Dr.  Taylor,  treats 
first  of  the  possibility  of  preventing  sin.  He  exam- 
ines his  opponent's  statements,  one  by  one,  at  consid- 

1.    Christian  Spectator,  p.  S35.  2.    Ibid.,  pp.  628-653. 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  265 

erable  length  and  with  the  purpose  of  coming  exactly 
to  the  point  in  dispute.  It  is  not  worth  while  here  to 
follow  these  steps  minutely,  though  they  furnish  a 
good  example  of  careful  argumentation,  but  the  sum 
of  his  conclusion  may  be  presented  in  the  following 
sentences : 

"You  seem  to  think  there  is  that  in  each  indi- 
vidual moral  agent,  which  renders  it  impossible  for 
God  to  prevent  his  sinning ;  and  this  ground  of  im- 
possibility you  have  said  is  the  very  nature  of  moral 
agency;  which  of  course  belongs  to  every  moral 
agent.  And  I  would  have  it  remembered,  that  this 
ground  of  impossibility  belongs  equally  to  all  moral 
agents — belongs  to  one  as  much  as  to  another,  and 
to  each  moral  agent  as  much  as  to  a  moral  world. 
It  exists  as  perfectly  in  each,  individually  considered, 
as  in  all,  collectively  considered ;  and  relates  as  much 
to  *  each  sin  individually  considered,'  as  to  all  sins 
considered  collectively.  So  that  I  see  not  how  to 
avoid  the  conclusion,  that  if,  from  the  very  nature 
of  moral  agency,  it  was  impossible  for  God.  to  pre- 
vent sin  in  the  moral  world,  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  prevent  it  in  any  instance  whatever ;  and  to 
speak  of  God  as  actually  preventing  sin,  would  be 
inconsistent.  The  same  as  to  the  conversion  and 
salvation  of  sinners."  ^ 

After  thus  interpreting  Dr.  Taylor's  assertions  as 
implying  a  denial  of  admitted  facts,  he  supports  his 
own  view  of  God's  power  in  controlling  men  by 
quoting  from  Leighton,  the  following : 

"There  is  a  secret  but  very  powerful  virtue  in  a 
word,  or  look,   or  touch,  of  this  Spirit  upon  the  soul, 

1.    Works  IV,  p.  385. 


266        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

by  which  it  is  forced,  not  with  a  harsh,  but  a  pleas- 
ing violence,  and  cannot  choose  but  follow  it."  ^ 

He  illustrated  still  further  the  divine  influence  in 
the  aifairs  of  the  moral  world,  by  reference  to  the 
history  of  Joseph  and  the  crucifixion  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Woods  does  not  treat  as  carefully  the  question, 
whether  sin  is  the  means  of  the  greatest  good,  as  he 
does  that  of  its  preventability.  Still  it  receives  dis- 
tinct attention.      He  asks: 

"What  then  does  follow  from  the  fact  that  God 
makes  use  of  moral  evil  as  one  means  of  influencing 
moral  agents  to  obedience?  It  follows,  that  God 
saw  it  proper  to  do  so ,  that  it  was  a  mode  of  in- 
fluence which  in  the  exercise  of  his  wisdom  he  chose 
— chose  in  preference  to  using  other  means  of  in- 
fluence exclusively  of  this, — chose,  not  because  he 
was  unable  to  preserve  his  creatures  holy  by  other 
means  without  this,  but  because  he  saw  it  to  be 
wisest  and  best,  on  the  whole,  to  make  use  of  this 
means  in  connection  with  others."^ 

The  main  argument  on  this  point  is  that  God 
makes  use  of  sin  and  therefore  it  must  be  wise  to  do 
so.  This  point  he  considered  that  Dr.  Taylor  had 
really  conceded,  for  in  the  note  appended  to  his  Con- 
do  he  had  asserted  his  full  belief  that  the  decrees 
of  God  extend  to  all  events,  sin  included ;  and  that 
sin  considered  as  incidental,  is  subject  to  the  divine 
purpose  as  fully  as  when  considered  a  means  of  good, 
and  had  also  said: 

"We  know  of  no  creature  of  God,  whose  holiness 
is  secured  without  that  influence  which  results  either 

1.    Works  IV,  p.  378.  2.    Ibid.,  IV,  p,  420. 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  267 

directly  or  indirectly,  from  the  existence  of  sin  and 
its  punishment.  How  then,  can  it  be  shown  from 
fads,  that  God  could  secure  any  of  his  moral  crea- 
tures in  holiness,  without  this  influence?" 

Dr.  Woods,  referring  to  these  statements,  says : 

"Thus  your  reasoning  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
note,  is  really  a  confutation, — and  if  it  were  only 
from  another  writer,  I  should  say,  direct  and  studied 
confutation,  of  what  you  advance  in  the  former  part. 
You  first  maintain  that  sin  is  not  the  necessary  means 
of  the  greatest  good,  and  then  you  maintain  that  the 
holiness  of  intelligent  creatures,  which  you  certainly 
regard  as  involved  in  the  greatest  good,  could  not  in 
any  instances,  no,  not  even  by  the  power  of  God,  be 
preserved  without  the  existence  and  punishment  of 


sin 


yn 


It  is  evident  in  this  controversy,  that  the  two 
disputants  do  not  always  have  precisely  the  same 
idea  in  mind  in  speaking  of  sin  as  the  necessary 
means  of  the  greatest  good.  Dr.  Taylor  implies,  at 
times  at  least,  that  his  opponents  consider  it  the 
means  of  the  greatest  good  because  of  its  inherent 
excellence  ;  Dr.  Woods  uniformly  spoke  of  sin  as 
evil,  and  only  evil  in  itself,  as  a  means  of  good 
only  through  the  use  to  which  God  subjects  it  in  his 
overruling  power.  Publishing  in  his  collected  works, 
in  1850,  these  letters  ^vritten  twenty  years  before, 
in  an  appendix  to  the  second  letter,  he  confesses  his 
inadvertence  in  accepting  Dr.  Taylor^s  words,  the 
necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  as  expressing  the 
opinion  of  the  orthodox.      He  says  : 

1.    Works,  rv,  p.  14. 


268       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

"  It  must  be  kept  in  mind,  that  it  (sin)  is  never 
the  only  means,  nor  the  chief  means ;  but  is  only 
one  of  a  series  of  means  which  Divine  Providence  em- 
ploys to  carry  into  effect  its  benevolent  designs."  ^ 

Probably  no  one  ever  misunderstood  him,  the 
explanation  hardly  seems  necessary. 

There  was  no  difference  of  view  between  these 
disputants  as  to  the  fact  of  sin  in  the  world  or  as 
to  its  amount.  They  both  held  to  the  infinite  wis- 
dom and  the  omnipotence  of  God.  They  differed  as 
to  the  reason  for  the  permission  of  sin.  Dr.  Woods 
considered  that  the  alternative  before  the  divine  mind 
was :  a  moral  system  being  determined  upon,  either  a 
sinless  system  of  inferior  excellence,  or  a  system  with 
sin  yet  containing  the  greatest  good.  Dr.  Taylor 
was  averse  to  admitting  that  God  ever  preferred  sin 
to  holiness  in  its  place ;  ever  preferred  that  his  com- 
mands should  be  disobeyed,  and  suggested  as  the 
alternative  before  the  divine  mind,  a  moral  system 
with  sin  incidental  to  it,  or  no  moral  system  at  all. 
He  said,  it  has  not  been  proved  that  this  is  not  the 
real  alternative,  and  we  may  resort  to  it  as  affording  re- 
lief from  the  idea  that  God  really  desires  the  occurrence 
of  the  sin  which  he  forbids.  He  thought  there  was  a 
broad  difference  between  the  two  alternatives. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  Calvinists  out  of  New 
England  have  not  generally,  in  this  country,  ac- 
cepted the  statement  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means 
of  the  greatest  good. 

The  doctrine  of  regeneration  was  not  originally 
included  among  the   peculiarities  of  the  New  Haven 

1 .    Works  IV,  p.  371. 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  269 

theology.  But  in  1829  Dr.  Taylor  reviewed  a  work 
of  Dr.  Gardiner  Spring  on  the  Means  of  Kegenera- 
tion,  and  presented  views  which  called  forth  the 
charge  of  Arminianism  and  of  other  heresies.  It  is 
held  by  Calvinists  of  the  Old  School  that  regenera- 
tion is  a  work  of  God^s  almighty  power,  not  mediated 
by  anything  which  men  can  do,  is  as  simple  an  act 
as  creation.  Still  it  is  held  that  there  are  certain 
things  which  the  sinner  can  perform,  such  as  read- 
ing the  Scriptures,  prayer,  attendance  upon  public 
worship,  which  render  the  divine  interposition  in  his 
behalf  more  probable  than  it  would  be  if  these  duties 
were  neglected.  The  Hopkinsian  doctrine  is  that 
man's  ability  is  equal  to  his  obligation;  he  ought  to 
repent  at  once,  he  can  repent  at  once,  he  has  no  need 
of  means,  to  delay  for  the  use  of  means  is  sin,  and 
would  be  doing  evil  that  good  might  come.  Dr. 
Taylor  was  not  satisfied  with  either  of  these  views. 
In  his  letter  to  Dr.  Hawes  he  said  : 

"I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  necessary  that  the 
sinner  in  using  the  means  of  regeneration,  should 
commit  sin  in  order  to  become  holy.  But  I  do  be- 
lieve that  as  a  moral  agent  he  is  qualified  so  to  use 
the   means   of  grace,    i.  e.,  the  truth   of  God   when 

g resent  to  his  mind,  as  to  become  holy  at  once,  that 
e  is  authorized  to  believe,  that   through   the   grace 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  this  may  be  done.''  ^ 

He  admitted  that  in  the  broad  and  general  sense 
regeneration  includes  the  means  of  regeneration  in 
the  narrow  and  proper  sense.  The  latter  is  setting 
the  affections  on  God  as  the  chief  object  of  love  and 

1.    Christian  Spectator,  1832,  x>.  174;    Crocker's  Catastrophe,  p.  179. 


270       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

service.  Such  a  choice  requires  a  knowledge  of 
God,  a  conviction  that  his  service  is  desirable,  that 
worldliness  is  unprofitable ;  and  the  choice  is  made 
only  by  means  of  such  knowledge  and  conviction. 
They  are  therefore  the  means  of  regeneration,  though 
the  word  may  be  used  in  a  broader  sense,  including 
the  knowledge  and  conviction  and  the  renunciation  of 
the  world,  with  the  choice  of  God  in  one  comprehen- 
sive act.  The  use  of  means,  as  thus  explained.  Dr. 
Taylor  held,  does  not  involve  guilt,  since  it  is 
prompted  by  self-love,  the  natural  desire  of  happi- 
ness, and  not  by  the  selfish  principle,  at  least  this 
may  be  the  case,  and,  in  every  instance  of  actual 
conversion,  is  the  case.  In  the  choice  of  God  in 
the  place  of  the  world,  from  the  motive  of  self-love, 
he  held  that  the  selfish  principle  is  held  in  suspense 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  did  not  admit  that  this 
view  of  regeneration  left  one  for  a  time  without 
moral  character,  because  the  selfish  principle  re- 
mained in  full  force  except  at  the  one  point  to  which 
the  thoughts  were  at  the  moment  directed.  He  held 
also  that  the  entire  complex  process,  suppression  of 
the  selfish  principle,  consideration  of  the  truth,  and 
turning  to  God,  were  but  one  complex  act,  and  oc- 
cupied no  appreciable  duration  of  time. 

A  few  of  his  statements  will  aid  to  an  under- 
standing of  his  position.  "  God  tells  the  sinner  that 
it  is  better  to  obey  than  to  disobey  him.'^  In  view  of 
this  call  "the  appropriate  tendency  of  the  feeling  is  to 
the  voluntary  act  of  sober,  solemn  consideration." 
'^  Here  the  mental  process  of  using  the  means  of 
regeneration  does   or   does  not   begin.      If  he   thus 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  271 

considers,  it  begins ;  and  now  the  appropriate  tend- 
ency of  consideration  is  to  deeper  emotion.''  Then 
by  the  mutual  influence  of  thought  and  feeling  the 
truth  tends  ^^  to  produce  regeneration."  "When 
these  tendencies  are  not  successfully  counteracted  by 
opposing  tendencies,  when,  by  the  strivings  of  the 
Spirit,  they  are  perpetuated  and  increased,  then  it  is 
that  the  selfish  principle  not  only  suffers  temporary 
suspensions,  but  grows  weaker  and  weaker  in  each 
instance  of  its  returning  activity  and  dominion, 
until  at  some  point  before  the  heart  fixes  on  God, 
the  power  and  influence  of  this  principle  Avholly 
cease  from  the  mind."  When  this  selfish  principle 
is  suspended  and  the  sinner  sees  the  worthlessness 
of  this  world  and  the  terrible  consequences  of  sin, 
he  must  desire  the  salvation  offered  him  in  the  gos- 
pel and  make  choice  of  it. 

When  asked,  what  is  the  moral  character  of  this 
desire,  he  replied : 

"Instead  therefore,  of  involving  either  selfish  or 
holy  affection,  this  desire  of  the  sinner  is  the  mere 
dictate  of  his  sensitive  nature,  fixing  on  an  interest 
in  divine  mercy,  as  the  known  and  necessary  means 
of  escaping  what  above  all  things  he  desires  to  es- 
cape, the  fearful  doom  of  endless  death."  ^ 

He  contended  that  this  is  the  only  method  of 
using  the  means  of  regeneration. 

"We  say  then,  that  the  sinner  under  the  call  of 
present  duty,  is  authorized  to  believe  in  the  practi- 
cability of  present  duty,  and  that  the   view   we  have 

1.    Christian  Spectator,  1829,  pp,  227-230. 


272  ^^EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

taken  of  using  the  means  of  regeneration,  shows  the 
way,  and  the  only  way,  in  which  it  will  prove  to  be 
a  lact,  that  such  duty  will  be  done.'' 

"  But  we  have  shown  them  the  way,  and  the  only 
way,  in  w^hich  they  may  instantly  comply  with  the 
terms  of  salvation,  even  putting  themselves  at  once  to 
the  act  of  compliances^  ^ 

He  held  that  the  sinner  never  really  uses  the 
means  of  regeneration,  till  the  moment  of  regenera- 
tion, that  while  regeneration  is  a  moral,  not  physical 
change,  it  still  is  never  produced  by  mere  moral  sua- 
sion, but  by  the  truth  as  presented  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Still  he  held  that  the  change  by  which  the 
sinner  becomes  a  new  man,  is  effected  by  his  own 
action  put  forth  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  laws 
of  moral  agency.  He  held  that  the  truth  has  a  ten- 
dency to  convert  the  soul  and  would  actually  con- 
vert it  if  its  influence  were  not  obstructed,  but  sel- 
fishness* so  suppresses  its  power  over  the  sensitive 
nature  that  it  never  does  transform  the  soul  except 
as  made  effective  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

He  considered  the  doctrine  that  the  truth  appeals 
to  self-love,  not  selfishness  one  of  great  importance. 
He  says  of  revelation : 

"  By  appealing  with  its  motives,  not  to  the  selfish 
principle  of  the  heart,  but  to  self-love,  it  not  only 
finds  direct  access  to  the  mind  of  the  moral  agent, 
but  it  reaches  the  ultimate  seat  and  source  of  every 
moral  preference  and  of  all  the  subsequent  move- 
ments of  moral  agency.''^ 

Dr.  Taylor  complained  often  during  the  period  of 
his  controversies,  and  to  the  last,  that  he  was  misun- 

1.    Christian  Spectator,  \%'2^,^^,'70Q,'rn.  2.    Ibid.,  1829,  p.  226. 


NEW  HAVEN  THEOLOGY.  273 

derstood.  It  is  probably  true  that  he  was  misun- 
derstood at  times,  for  his  distinctions  were  in  many 
instances  subtle,  and  the  consistency  of  his  published 
statements  is  not  always  clear  at  the  first  glance. 

Among  those  w^ho  criticised  his  views  of  regener- 
ation. Dr.  Bennett  Tyler  was  the  most  conspicuous, 
as  he  was  among  the  ablest  reviewers  of  the  entire 
scheme  of  Taylorism.  His  main  objections  to  the 
New  Haven  teachings  on  regeneration  were  those 
which  would  be  most  readily  suggested.  It  was  as- 
serted that  real,  effective  suspension  of  the  selfish 
principle  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  regeneration,  and  if 
this  takes  place  before  regeneration,  then  there  is  a 
regeneration  before  regeneration :  it  was  also  asserted, 
if  men  are  induced  to  turn  to  God  from  motives 
inherent  in  their  own  hearts,  they  are  not  totally  de- 
praved :  it  was  further  asserted,  if  men  turn  from  the 
world  to  God  from  promptings  within  themselves, 
then  the  doctrine  of  election  has  no  place  in  the 
scheme  of  salvation ;  it  was  also  maintained  that  re- 
generation by  a  choice  springing  from  one's  own 
heart,  would  not  be  regeneration,  w^ould  be  no  new 
creation.  The  entire  scheme  w^as  said  to  tend  to 
Arminianism  and  Pelagianism.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  follow  Dr.  Tyler's  arguments  in  detail.  He  was 
a  thorough  Edwardean  and  introduced  no  novelties 
into  New  England  Theology. 

The  opposition  to  New  Haven  Theology,  was  so 
decided  in  Connecticut,  that  it  led  in  1834,  to  the 
establishment  of  a  new  theological  seminary  in  which 
the  old  doctrines  were  to  be  taught.  This  institu- 
tion was  located  at  East  Windsor,  and  bore  the  name 


274        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

Theological  Institute  of  Connecticut.  In  1865,  it 
was  removed  to  Hartford  and  is  now  known  as  Hart- 
ford Theological  Seminary. 


CHAPTER  yil. 

OBERLIN   THEOLOGY. 

The  Institution  at  Oberlin  was  established  in  1834. 
In  1835  Rev.  Asa  Mahan  was  elected  president  of 
the  college  and  Rev.  Charles  G.  Finney  professor  in 
the  theological  department.  These  noted  preachers 
came  in  contact  with  large  numbers  of  Christian 
people  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  by  their  min- 
istrations in  many  churches,  and  in  presenting  the 
needs  and  aims  of  their  institution.  Finney  had 
already  acquired  a  wide  reputation  by  evangelistic 
work,  extending  through  ten  or  more  years,  as  well 
as  by  his  pastoral  labors  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
The  doctrine  that  became  associated  with  their  names 
and  awakened  much  interest  for  a  time  was  that  of 
Christian  perfection.  In  the  course  of  their  theo- 
logical instructions  some  peculiar  views  found  expres- 
sion and  served  to  distinguish  the  institution,  and, 
in  a  degree,  separate  it  from  other  like  institutions 
of  the  country.  President  Mahan  was  a  graduate 
of  Andover  Seminary.  Professor  Finney  had  been 
under  ISTew  School  influences,  so  that  they  naturally 
made  the  New  England  Theology  their  starting  point. 
Their  development   of  doctrines,    in   any  divergence 


276  ^EW   ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

from  this  theology,  has  not  been  widely  accepted 
and  hardly  belongs  to  this  present  treatise,  but  the 
importance  of  the  institution  and  the  many  affilia- 
tions between  the  Oberlin  moral  philosophy  and 
anthropology  and  those  of  New  England  make  it 
proper  to  pass  them  briefly  in  review.  The  inter- 
est taken  by  these  divines  in  the  doctrine  of  perfec- 
tion probably  had  some  influence  in  fixing  their 
views  upon  other  topics  on  which  they  differed  from 

their  brethren. 

Christian  Perfection. 

Finney  seems  to  have  embraced  this  doctrine 
about  the  time  of  his  going  to  Oberlin  and  early  in 
his  association  with  Mahan.  His  views  had  pre- 
viously been  precisely  those  ordinarily  entertained  by 
the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  Churches  of 
this  country.  In  a  lecture  delivered  in  the  city  of 
New  York  in  the  winter  of  1834-5,  on  "  Growth 
in  Grace,''  he  says  : 

"  To  grow  better,  implies  a  more  clear  and  distinct 
knowledge  of  the  breadth  of  God's  law,  and  a  grow- 
ing sense  of  the  sinfulness  of  sin.  But  the  more 
clear  an  individual's  views  become  of  the  standard, 
the  lower  will  be  the  estimate  which  he  forms  of 
himself,  because  the  clearer  will  be  his  views  of  the 
distance  at  which  he  still  is  from  the  pure  and  per- 
fect standard  of  holiness  to  which  Goa  requires  him 
to  conform  all  his  conduct." 

..."  I  have  been  confounded  when  I  have  heard 
some  persons  talk  of  their  purity,  and  of  being 
entirely  pure  of  their  sins,  and  of  being  perfect. 
They  must  have  vastly  different  views  of  tnemselves 
from  what  Job  and  Isaiah  had."  ^ 

I.    Quoted  in  Exposition  of  Oberlin  Perfectionism  by  the  Presb3i;ery  of 
Cleveland,  pp.  75,  76. 


OBEKLIN  THEOLOGY.  27T 

But  Finney  says  that  he  preached  the  doctrine 
of  perfection,  of  entire  consecration  in  New  York  in 
the  winter  of  1836-7,  that  his  discourses  were  re- 
ported in  the  New  York  Evangelist,  and  that  they 
elicited  no  unfavorable  comment  so  far  as  he  knew.  ^ 

After  the  subject  attracted  attention  and  roused 
vigorous  opposition,  while  Finney  and  Mahan  seem 
to  have  agreed  in  sentiment,  Mahan  took  the  task 
of  formulating  the  doctrine  and  replying  to  attacks 
upon  it.  A  summary  statement  of  his  views  will  be 
first  presented. 

These  views  are  to  be  found  in  a  series  of  dis- 
courses, published  under  the  title  Scripture  Doctrine 
of  Christian  Perfection.  The  work  passed  through 
several  editions.  The  following  statements  are  taken 
from  the  fourth  edition,  published  in  1840.  He  an- 
nounces the  question  on  which  he  and  his  opponents 
differ  thus: 

"Whether  we  may  now,  during  the  progress  of 
the  present  life,  attain  to  entire  perfection  m  holi- 
ness, and  whether  it  is  proper  for  us  to  indulge  the 
anticipation  of  making  such  attainments."  ^ 

For  the  solution  of  the  question,  he  says  we  must 
look  simply  to  the  provision  made  in  the  gospel  for 
our  sanctification.  In  the  course  of  the  discussion, 
however,  reference  was  frequently  made  to  man's 
ability  to  keep  the  law.  At  present,  we  give  the 
argument  as  it  is  derived  from  the  Scriptures.  It 
is  inferred  from  the  following  considerations  that  per- 
fection is  attainable. 

1.    Theology,  English  Edition,  p  511.  3.    Ibid.,  p,  15. 


278       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

(1)  "The  Bible  positively  affirms  that  provision 
is  made  in  the  gospel  for  the  attainment  of  that 
state,  and  that  to  make  such  provision  is  one  of  the 
great  objects  of  Christ's  redemption."  (2)  "Perfect- 
tion  in  holiness  is  promised  to  the  Christian  in  the 
new  covenant  under  which  he  is  now  placed.''  (3) 
"I  infer  that  a  state  of  perfect  holiness  is  attainable 
in  this  life,  from  the  commands  of  Scripture,  addressed 
to  Christians  under  the  new  covenant."  (4)  "The 
attainment  of  this  state  in  this  life  is  the  declared 
object  for  which  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  the  hearts 
of  God's  people,  and  for  which  all  the  gifts  that 
Christ  bestowed  upon  the  church  when  he  ascended 
up  on  high,  were  conferred."  (5)  "As  a  fifth  argu- 
ment, we  will  consider  the  prayer  dictated  by  our 
Saviour  to  his  disciples,  together  with  the  one  put  up 
by  him,  in  behalf  of  the  church,  on  the  evening  pre- 
ceding his  crucifixion."  (6)  "Inspired  men  made 
the  attainment  of  this  particular  state  the  subject  of 
definite,  fervent  and  constant  prayer."  (7)  "Many- 
promises  of  Scripture  are  conditioned  on  this  state. 
(8)  It  may  be  argued  "from  the  testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture that  some  did  attain  to  that  state."  (9)  "No 
one  can  point  out  an  incentive  to  sin,  from  within  or 
around  him,  for  which  a  specific  remedy  is  not  pro- 
vided in  the  gospel."  (10)  "  No  one  can  lay  down 
a  line  this  side  of  that  state,  beyond  which  it  is  not 
practicable  for  the  Christian  to  go."  (11)  In  favor 
of  the  doctrine  is  "the  striking  contrast  between  the 
language  of  inspiration  and  of  the  church  upon  this 
subject,  whenever  the  church  has  denied  the  doctrine." 

(12)  "The  convictions  of  the  church,  as  universally 
expressed  in  her  covenants,  demand  the  admission  of 
the  attainableness   of  perfect    holiness  in  this  life." 

(13)  "The  tendency  of  this  doctrine,  as  compared 
with  that  of  its  opposite,  is  another  important  reason 
why  we  should  admit  it."  (14)  "The  absurdity  of 
the  common  supposition,  that  the  Christian  is  always 


OBERLIN  THEOLOGY.  279 

perfectly  sanctified  at,  or  a  few  minutes  before,  death, 
and  never  at  an  earlier  period/' ^ 

In  connection  with  this  doctrine  of  perfection, 
Mahan  made  much  of  the  new  covenant  under  which 
we  now  live.  The  old  covenant  is  the  moral  law, 
"the  covenant  originally  made  with  Adam,  re-an- 
nounced at  Mount  Sinai,  and  which  now  exists 
between  God  and  all  unfallen  spirits."  The  new 
covenant  is  the  covenant  of  grace,  obscurely  disclosed 
in  the  Old  Testament,  fully  revealed  in  Christ  who 
is  its  Mediator,  who  promises  on  the  condition  of 
faith : 

(1)  "A  confirmed  state  of  pure  and  perfect  holi- 
ness, such  as  is  required  by  the  moral  law,  (2) 
the  full  pardon  of  all  sin,  or  entire  justification,  (3) 
the  perpetual  fruition  of  the  divine  presence  and 
favor,  (4)  the  consequent  universal  prevalence  of 
the  gospel.'' 

He  says  of  these  two  covenants : 

"  The  '  surety '  of  the  first  covenant  is  the  creature 
himself.  The  surety  of  the  new  covenant  is  Christ." 
"  The  first  covenant  is  a  dispensation  of  justice.  The 
new  is  a  dispensation  of  mercy."  "Whatever  the 
old  covenant,  or  the  moral  law,  requires  of  the  crea- 
ture, the  new  covenant  promises  to  the  believer."  ^ 

The  Oberlin  theologians  desired  that  this  doc- 
trine should  appear  prominently  as  a  scriptural  doc- 
trine and  therefore  placed  special  emphasis  on  those 
arguments  which  have  now  been  adduced.  They 
desired   to    promote    the     piety   of    the    church    by 

1.    Doctrine  of  Christian  Perfection,  pp.  20-47.        2.    Ibid.,  pp.  80-83. 


280  •      NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

preaching  entire  consecration  and  did  not  aim  to 
establish  any  new  philosophical  principle  or  any  new 
psychological  truth.  Still  they  were  obliged  to  ex- 
plain their  position  in  ways  that  introduced  the  prin- 
ciples of  mental  and  moral  philosophy.  They  did 
not  hold  to  the  possibility  of  man's  absolute,  ideal 
holiness  in  the  present  life,  but  to  sinless  perfection, 
that  is,  a  course  of  conduct  free  from  transgressions 
of  the  law.  They  did  not  teach  the  possibility  of  a 
devotion  like  that  of  the  spirits  in  heaven,  but  they 
taught  that  any  man  could  consecrate  to  God  such 
powers  as  he  had,  he  could  honestly  and  sincerely 
serve  God  with  whatever  abilities  he  possessed.  This 
led  to  the  assertion  that  every  man  has  ability  to  do 
his  duty,  his  entire  duty.  Mahan  did  not  insist  on 
this  so  strenuously  as  some  of  his  associates  but  im- 
plied it  in  the  following  as  among  the  things  on 
which  all  agreed ; 

^^AU  agree  that  this  entire  perfection  in  holiness 
is  definitely  and  positively  required  of  us  in  the 
Bible,  and  that  for  not  rendering  such  obedience 
to  God,  we  are  wholly  without  excuse.  ^  *  >K 
All  agree  that  no  line  can  be  drawn  this  side  of  en- 
tire ]3erfection  in  holiness,  beyond  which  it  is  not 
practical  for  the  Christian  to  go."^ 

Finney  affirmed  this  doctrine  of  ability  in  all  his 
theological  writings,  in  his  sermons,  and  in  his  class- 
room teaching.  Professor  Wright,  speaking  of  this 
class  of  theologians,  says  : 

"What  they  were  all  agreed  in,  however,  was  the 
natural  ability  of  the  human  will  to  keep  the  law  of 

1.    Doctrine  of  Christian  Perfection,  pp.  14-15. 


OBEKLIN  THEOLOGY.  281 

God,  or,  in   other   words,  the   equation    between   the 
extent  of  obligation  and  that  of  natural  ability.^^^ 

Finney  added  to  this  doctrine  of  natural  ability 
that  of  the  simplicity  of  moral  action.  He  held  that 
all  moral  action  is  that  of  the  will,  meaning  by  will 
the  power  of  executive  volition,  and  that  all  moral 
character  at  any  point  of  time,  is  in  the  choice  at  that 
time.  Therefore,  since  the  will  is  competent  to  but 
one  choice  at  a  time,  whenever  a  person  makes  a  right 
choice  he  is  perfect  for  the  moment,  and  if  he  makes 
a  succession  of  right  choices,  he  is  perfect  so  long  as 
the  succession  continues.  He  held  that  any  real 
choice  is  a  sincere  and  honest  choice,  and  that  posi- 
tive honesty  and  sincerity  are  perfection.  To  the 
objection  that  a  right  ultimate  end  may  be  chosen,  yet 
with  imperfect  virtue  for  the  lack  of  proper  intensity 
in  the  choice,  he  replied : 

"The  degree  of  obligation  must  be  just  equal  to 
the  mind's  honest  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  end. 
The  degree  of  obligation  must  vary  as  the  light  varies. 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  of  reason.  If 
this  is  so,  it  follows  that  the  mind  is  honest,  when, 
and  only  when,  it  devotes  its  strength  to  the  end  in 
view,  with  an  intensity  just  proportioned  to  its  present 
light,  or  estimate  of  the  value  of  that  end.''  ^ 

This  doctrine  of  perfection  called  forth  much 
opposition  in  the  early  years  of  its  promulgation  and 
brought  the  institution  with  which  its  advocates  were 
connected  into  a  good  deal  of  disrepute.  It  is  not 
necessary,    however,  to  notice   at  length   the   replies 

1.    Life  of  Finney,  p.  210.         2.    Theology  Oberlin  Edition,  pp.  97,  98. 


282       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

that  were  made  to  its  claims,  as  they  do  not  form  a 
part  of  the  Oberb'n  theology.  A  brief  reference  to 
a  few  of  them  may  be  of  historic  interest. 

It  will  be  noticed  at  once  that  the  Biblical  and 
philosophical  arguments  do  not  wholly  coincide.  Both 
Mahan  and  Finney  affirmed  again  and  again  that 
there  was  no  hope  of  a  perfect  Christian  life,  except 
through  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by 
means  of  the  gracious  provisions  of  the  gospel.  Their 
argument  from  man's  ability,  therefore,  was  rather 
against  them,  than  in  their  favor,  for  dependence  upon 
grace  was  a  confession  that  ability  of  itself  was  in- 
adequate to  the  result.  The  doctrine  of  the  simplicity 
of  moral  action,  again,  even  excluded  the  influence  of 
grace  upon  moral  character,  for  it  made  any  right 
choice  of  itself  a  perfect  choice,  and  the  chooser  a 
perfect  man.  But  these  points  were  not  made  prom- 
inent in  the  discussion,  there  was  so  much  of  earnest- 
ness and  deep  conviction  on  both  sides,  that  the 
religious  sentiment  greatly  prevailed  over  the  philo- 
sophical. In  falling  back  upon  the  grace  oifered  in 
the  gospel  as  the  decisive  element  in  the  discussion 
the  disputants  were  compelled  to  rest  upon  the  facts  of 
Christian  experience.  No  one  could  decide  from  a 
'priori  considerations  what  degree  of  holiness  God 
would  produce  in  his  people.  The  only  question, 
was,  what  has  he  done? 

Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  published  in  the  Amer- 
ican Biblical  Eepository  for  1841  an  extended 
"Examination  of  the  Doctrine  of  Perfection.'' 
Though  he  intended  to  treat  the  general  subject  his 
remarks  were  directed  chiefly  to  the   positions  taken 


OBERLIN  THEOLOGY.  283 

by  President  Mahan.  He  criticises  the  advocates 
uf  perfection  for  assuming  that  they  alone  teach  that 
the  provisions  of  the  gospel  are  adequate  to  the 
sanctification  of  believers,  whereas  all  Christians  hold 
to  the  doctrine,  but  hold  that  the  full  effect  of  the 
provisions  made  may  not  take  place  in  this  life. 
He  charges  his  opponents  with  claiming  to  be  the 
only  ones  who  teach  that  complete  sanctification  is 
attainable,  whereas  all  hold  it  to  be  attainable,  but 
the  question  of  fact  remains,  have  any  in  this  life 
already  attained  it  ?  Woods  argues  "  that  the  religion 
of  God's  people  throughout  the  present  life  is  pro- 
gressive, beginning  at  their  conversion,  and  advanc- 
ing from  one  degree  of  holiness  to  another.''  This 
is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  believers  are  required 
to  grow  in  grace ;  that  Christian  life  is  a  warfare,  and 
the  war  is  within;  that  Christians  desire  holiness  as 
a  future  good  not  yet  attained;  that  the  followers  of 
Christ  pray  that  their  fellow  Christians  may  be  sanc- 
tified ;  that  Christians  suffer  ajfflictions  sent  upon  them 
as  chastisements ;  that  God  may  overrule  the  sinful- 
ness that  remains  in  his  children  to  the  end  of  life, 
so  as  to  make  it  the  means  of  honoring  in  the  high- 
est degree  his  own  infinite  wisdom  and  grace ;  that 
the  most  advanced  Christians  have  a  deep  and  grow- 
ing sense  of  remaining  depravity.  ^ 

The  Presbytery  of  Troy,  members  of  which  had 
sustained  Mr.  Finney  in  his  evangelistic  labors, 
adopted  resolutions  adverse  to  the  Oberlin  theory. 
They  understood  the  doctrine  to  be  :  "  Christian  men 
do  attain  in  some  cases  during  the  present  life,  to  a 

1.    Reprint  of  Art.  in  Biblical  Repository  in  Wood's  Works,  IV,  pp.  501-510. 


284  ^"EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

state  of  perfect  holiness,  excluding  sin  in  every  form, 
and  for  an  indefinite  period  they  remain  in  that 
state."  The  Presbytery  held  that  the  burden  of  proof 
rested  on  the  affirmative ;  that  the  statement  was  not 
proved;  that  the  attainable  might  not  be  attained; 
that  the  provisions,  though  adequate,  might  not  be 
used;  that  commands,  promises,  prayers  were  under 
conditions;  that  texts  cited  in  proof  of  the  doctrine 
were  misinterpreted;  that  the  Bible  records  the  de- 
fects of  those  spoken  of  as  perfect. 

Mr.  Finney  considered  that  the  Presbytery  raised 
a  false  issue.  ^ 

The  Presbytery  of  Cleveland,  having  Oberlin  in 
'its  immediate  vicinity,  must  have  felt  the  influence 
of  its  new  teachings  more  than  ecclesiastical  bodies  at 
a  greater  distance.  At  its  meeting  in  October,  1840, 
it  adopted  a  report,  prepared  by  a  previously  ap- 
pointed committee,  in  which  the  reason  for  its  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  is  thus  set  forth : 

*'As  those  who  are  'set  for  the  defence  of  the 
gospel,'  we  design  to  speak  plainly,  and  we  think 
not  unnecessarily,  of  a  system  now  generally  known 
by  the  name  of '  Oberlin  Perfectionism.'  The  peculi- 
arities of  this  system  have  now,  for  more  than  two 
years,  been  industriously,  if  not  successfully,  urged 
upon  the  attention  of  many  in  the  most  of  our 
churches,  and  accompanied  with  appeals,  and  sugges- 
tions, obviously  tending  to  subvert  the  system  of 
faith,  and  practice,  heretofore  adopted  amongst  us,  and 
to  undermine  confidence,  both  in  the  settled  princi- 
ples of  the  church,  and  in  those  who  teach  them  and 
defend  them.''^ 

1.    Finney's  Theology,  English  Edition,  p.  583. 
2.    Exposition,  Etc.,  p.  5. 


OBERLIN  THEOLOGY.  285 

This  report  presents  a  thorough  exposition  of  this 
peculiar  Oberlin  doctrine,  controverting  its  main  posi- 
tions at  great  length,  for  a  document  of  its  kind, 
occupying  as  it  does,  eighty-four  closely  printed  pages. 
Its  statement  of  the  case  and  its  argumentation,  do 
not  diifer  essentially  from  those  of  opponents  before 
spoken  of.  A  few  points  in  addition  to  the  criti- 
cisms of  Dr.  Woods  and  the  Troy  Presbytery,  will 
be  noticed.  Among  the  peculiarities  of  the  contro- 
verted scheme  are: 

"The  sentiment  that  heretofore  the  standard  of 
Christian  perfection  has  been  set  much  too  high.^'^ 
"That  which  first  leads  people  to  sin  is  their  inno- 
cent constitution.'' 2  ('The  term  flesh  ^  *  *  made 
to  signify  mere  subjection  to  bodily  appetites,  i.  e.  bad 
dietetic  habits,  etc.''^  "We  are  competent  witnesses 
to  our  entire  sanctification." 

Here  follows  a  quotation  from  Mr.  Finney  : 

"  It  is  a  point  upon  which  we  have  the  testimony 
of  our  own  consciousness,  which  is  the  highest  kind 
of  evidence.  And  we  are  just  as  competent  witnesses 
to  our  entire  sanctification,  as  that  we  have  any 
religion  at  all."^ 

The  tendency  of  the  system  is  said  to  be  :  "  To 
lower  down  the  demands  of  God's  law ;"  "  to  foster 
spiritual  pride ;"  "  to  cherish  egotism,  self-ignorance 
and  carnal  security  f  "  to  foster  contempt  of  pastoral 
instruction,  advice  and  admonition;"  "to  produce 
neglect  of  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  to  the  disuse 
of  prayer  for  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit."  ^ 

1.    Exposition,  Etc.,  p.  12.       2.    Ibid.,  p.  17.  3.  Ibid.,  p.  23. 

4.    Ibid.,  p.  36.  5.    Ibid.,  pp.  79, 80. 


286       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

These  positions  are  sustained  mostly  by  quota- 
tations  from  the  Oberlin  Evangelist. 

The  criticisms  of  the  Oberlin  position  which  have 
been  referred  to  illustrate  the  very  general  opposition 
which  it  called  forth  for  a  few  years  before  and 
after  1840.  But  both  advocacy  of  and  opposition 
to,  the  system  died  away  many  years  ago.  Whether 
it  is  still  maintained  by  any  one  is  hardly  a  matter 
of  inquiry,  the  doctrine  certainly  constitutes  no 
dividing  line  between  parties.  President  Fairchild 
holds  to  the  doctrine  in  a  modified  form,  if  at  all. 
He  says  there  is  no  support  to  the  idea  "that  by  a 
present  act  of  faith  all  necessary  future  faith  or 
future  obedience  may  be  secured,  so  that  we  shall 
never  fall  or  falter  again." 

"  Permanent  sanctification  as  distinct  from  present 
faith  and  obedience  is  not  his  (the  regenerate  man's) 
immediate  duty,  or  responsibility,  or  even  privilege."  ^ 

The  doctrine  of  perfection  has  never  been  a  part 
of  New  England  Theology.  Some  have  held  that 
on  the  ground  of  the  simplicity  of  moral  action  it 
might  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  exercise  scheme, 
but  Emmons,  the  most  thorough  adherent  of  that 
scheme,  did  not  accept  such  an  inference.      He  says  : 

"The  best  of  saints  are  imperfectly  holy  in  this 
life,  and  their  imperfection  in  holiness  consists  in 
their  sometimes  having  holy,  and  sometimes  unholy 
aifections.  *  *  *  A  train'  of  holy  and  unholy 
affections  forms  the  heart  of  a  saint ;  but  a  train  of 
constant,  uninterrupted  sinful  affections  forms  the 
heart  of  a  sinner."  ^ 

1.    Theology,  pp.  284,  285.  2.    Works,  VI.  p.  409. 


OBEKLIN  THEOLOGY.  287 

He  does  not  admit  that  the  unholy  exercise  in 
the  heart  of  the  regenerate  man  transforms  him  from 
a  saint  to  a  sinner,  though  it  is  perfectly  unholy, 
because  it  does  not  constitute  the  character  of  the 
man/' 

"This  objection  is  more  ambiguous  than  perti- 
nent. Saint  signifies  a  holy,  and  sinner  a  sinful 
character.  But  a  single  volition,  or  a  single  external 
action  does  not  form  a  character,  which  is  ahvays 
founded  on  a  course  of  conduct.  >5«  ?!<  >K  Though 
a  saint  may  sometimes  feel  and  act  just  like  a  sin- 
ner, yet  he  deserves  not  the  character  of  a  sinner, 
because  he  habitually  feels  and  acts  very  differently 
from  a  total  enemy  of  God.''  ^ 

Dr.  Hopkins,  so  far  from  holding  to  the  attain- 
ability of  holiness  in  this  life,  did  not  even  think  it 
on  the  whole  desirable. 

"  It  is,  in  itself  considered,  desirable  to  be  per- 
fectly holy ;  and  this  must  appear  desirable  to  all 
Christians,  viewed  in  and  by  itself.  But  as  God 
has  determined  and  declared  this  shall  not  be,  that 
any  man  shall  be  without  sin  in  this  life  ;  and,  there- 
fore, it  is  known  that  it  is  not,  on  the  whole,  best 
that  any  man  should  be  perfectly  holy  in  this  world ; 
in  this  view  of  it,  it  is  not  desirable,  nor  ought  any 
to  pray  for  it."  ^ 

Interest  in  Oberlin  theology  is  mainly  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  perfection,  but  it  diverges  from 
that  of  New  England  at  a  few  points  which  deserve 
passing  notice. 

Ability — Finney  was  wholly  a  Pelagian  in  his 
view  of  the .  will.  He  says  right  action  is  always 
possible  and  this  implies  power  to  will  the  right. 

1.    Works,  V,  p.  206.  2.    n)id.,  II,  p.  33. 


t 


288        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

"  It  is  nonsense  to  talk  of  ability  to  do  when  we 
exclude  the  ability  to  will."  ^ 

He  utterly  discarded  Edwards'  distinction  between 
natural  and  moral  ability,  made  moral  ability,  as 
Edwards  termed  it,  the  condition  of  the  existence  of 
natural  ability.  A  few  of  his  phrases  will  show  the 
position  he  assumed: 

"  Edwards  makes  ability  freedom  from  hindrance, 
but  this  is  no  ability,  ability  implies  power  to  will." 
..."  Edwards  makes  natural  inability  lack  of  power 
to  do  if  we  would,  but  in  morals  and  religion  this  is 
no  inability  at  all,  for  willing  is  doing." 
..."  Ability  to  will  in  accordance  with  moral  law 
must  be  natural  ability  to  obey  God." 
..."  Edwards'  moral  inability  is  an  inability  of  will, 
so  a  natural  inability,  for  all  ability  is  of  the  will. 
His  inability  is  real  disobedience,  and  natural  inabil- 
ity to  obey.  His  moral  ability  is  obedience,  and 
natural  inability  to  disobey." 

"The  human  mind  necessarily  assumes  the  free- 
dom of  the  human  will  as  a  first  truth  of  reason." 
..."  The  distinction  of  natural  and  moral  inability 
is  nonsensical."  ^ 

He  considers  that  Edwards'  error  was  denying 
that  moral  agents  are  the  causes  of  their  own  actions, 
into  which  he  had  been  led  by  the  Lockean  philos- 
ophy. Finney  held,  on  the  other  hand,  that  there 
must  be  direct  or  indirect  ability,  wherever  there  is 
obligation.  If  grace  is  at  any  time  needed  in  the 
discharge  of  duties  we  can  avail  ourselves  of  the 
provisions  of  grace.      He  did  not  mean  by  this  that 

1.    Theology,  English  Edition,  p .  483  ;  Theology,  Oberlin  Edition,  p.  322. 

2.    Theology,  English  Edition,  pp.  481-491  ;    Theology, 

Oberlin  Edition,  pp.  323-332. 


OBEKLIN  THEOLOGY.  289 

a  gracious  ability  is  granted,  in  the  Arminian  sense 
of  the  term ;  this  he  held  to  be  an  absurdity,  but 
that  we  have  ability  to  make  use  of  privileges  ac- 
corded us.      He  said  of  gracious  ability : 

^^  The  question  is  not  whether,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  men  ever  do  obey  God  without  the  gracious  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit.      I  hold  they  never  do."  ^ 

President  Fairchild  seems  to  agree  mth  Finney 
as  to  the  will.      He  says : 

"  We  know  that  we  can  pursue  either  of  the 
courses  open  to  us ;  this  is  the  beginning  and  end  of 
our  freedom.  Our  freedom  belongs  strictly  only  to 
the  governing  choice."  ^ 

He  finds  the  proof  of  freedom  in  consciousness. 

"We  know  that  we  are  free  and  that  is  the  end 
of  the  argument."  ^ 

He  replies  to  the  objection  that  we  are  conscious 
only  of  the  act,  that  "  we  are  conscious  of  the  act 
and  of  the  freedom  of  it."  ^  He  denies  that  the  will 
is  always  as  the  strongest  motive  but  maintains  that 
God  can  control  free  agents  without  destroying  their 
freedom.  ^ 

Regenei^aiion — The  Oberlin  view  of  this  subject  is 
a  not  unnatural  inference  from  some  of  the  New 
England  positions,  yet  is  not  to  be  considered  a  part 
of  its  theology.  Like  Emmons,  Finney  identified 
regeneration   and  conversion.      Both  held  to  the  ac- 

1.    Theology,  English  Edition,  p.  501  ;  Oberlin  Edition,  p.  342. 
2.    Theology,  p.  38.       3.    Ibid.,  p.  39.       4.    Ibid.,  p.  46.       5.    Ibid.,  p.  47. 


290  ^^EW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

tivity  of  the  soul  in  the  beginning  of  its  new  life, 
but  here  the  similarity  ended.  Emmons  held  that 
the  soul  works  out  its  salvation  because  God  works 
in  it  to  will ;  Finney  held  that  the  soul  chooses  a 
new  ultimate  end  of  action  because  God  demonstrates 
the  wisdom  of  the  choice.  Finney  makes  a  choice 
the  decisive  thing  in  entering  on  a  new  life.  He 
admits  that  the  mind  is  passive  in  receiving  instruc- 
tion or  enlightenment,  but  this  is  no  part  of  regen- 
eration. Eegeneration  is  turning  to  God,  or  is 
choosing  the  chief  good,  and  is  an  act  put  forth  as 
the  result  of  persuasives.  It  results  from  the 
effect  of  truth  upon  the  mind.  An  effect  adequate 
to  the  new  birth  is  only  produced  by  the  demonstra- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the  effect  is  of  like  kind 
with  that  produced  by  the  ordinary  teacher  of  the 
truth.  If  the  preacher  could  make  the  truth  as 
clear  as  the  Divine  Spirit  does,  he  could  convert  the 
soul.  This  theory  of  regeneration  corresponds  with 
his  conception  of  moral  action.  He  really  held  to 
but  one  right  moral  choice,  that  of  the  good  of  being, 
and  one  wrong  moral  choice,  that  of  self-indulgence, 
or  self  as  the  object  of  indulgence.  All  other  voli- 
tions come  under  one  or  the  other  of  these  ends  of 
action  and  are  controlled  by  them.     He  says : 

"  We  have  seen  that  the  choice  of  an  end  implies, 
and  while  the  choice  continues,  necessitates,  the 
choice  of  the  known  conditions  and  means  of  the 
end,  and  also  the  puttinaj  forth  of  volition  to  secure 
the  end."  i  ^  ^ 
,  .  ,  "  Thus,  it  is   self-evident  that   moral    character 

1.    Theology,  Oberlin  Edition,  p.  24. 


OBEKLIN  THEOLOGY.  291 

belongs  to  the  ultimate  intention,  and  that  a  man's 
character  is  as  the  end  for  which  he  lives  and  moves, 
and  has  his  being.  Virtue  consists  in  consecration 
to  the  right  end,  the  end  to  which  God  is  consecra- 
ted. This  end  is,  and  must  be,  by  virtue  of  its 
own  nature,  the  ground  of  obligation. ''  ^ 

His  belief  in  the  universal  application  of  the 
principle  that  the  ultimate  end  dominates  conduct 
and  is  decisive  of  moral  character,  is  indicated  by 
the  following.     Speaking  of  the  child,  he  says ; 

"He  knows  that  he  ought  to  will  his  parents' 
happiness,  and  his  own  happiness,  and  the  happiness 
of  the  world,  and  of  God ;  and  he  knows  that  obe- 
dience to  his  parents  sustains  the  relation  of  a  means 
to  this  end."  ^ 

This  leads  directly  to  the  position  that, — 

"  Regeneration  must  consist  in  a  change  in  the 
attitude  of  the  will,  or  a  change  in  its  ultimate 
choice,  intention  or  preference;  a  change  from  sel- 
fishness to  benevolence."  ^ 

Coincident  with  this  thought  is  the  statement, — 

"  Regeneration  is  nothing  else  than  the  will  being 
duly  influenced  by  the  truth."  * 

President  Finney's  view  of  justification  has  already 
been  spoken  of.  Upon  other  doctrines  he  agreed 
mainly  with  the  New  England  divines  of  the  new 
school.  He  said,  indeed,  of  the  atonement,  that  it 
is  not  the  ground  of  our  justification,  which  he  made 

1.    Theology,  Oberlin  Edition,  p .  29. 
3.    Ibid.,  p.  44.  3.    Ibid.,  p.  287.  4.    Ibid.,  p.  289. 


292       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

to  be  the  love  of  God,  but  he  held  it  to  be  the  con- 
sideration on  which  it  is  safe  for  God  to  pardon  sin, 
and  maintained  that  the  redeemed  are  saved  from 
penal  suiFerings  by  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ."  ^ 


1.    Theology,  Oberlin  Edition,  p.  271, 272. 


CHAPTER  yill. 

IS  THE   LATER  THEOLOGY   EDWARDEAN? 

The  "New  Divinity"  of  the  last  century  has  now 
become  old.  But  a  later  new  theology  has  been 
brought  to  our  attention.  It  is  a  scheme  of  modern 
belief  not  yet  fully  developed.  It  is  doubtful  if  any 
one  would  attempt  to  write  it  out  in  full,  if  any  two 
persons  would  precisely  agree  as  to  its  teachings. 
Still  the  term  is  proper,  needed  in  our  vocabulary. 
There  has  been  for  many  years  a  tendency  to  hold 
to,  and  give  utterance  to,  beliefs  other  than  those  that 
are  traditional.  It  may  be  that  all  the  ideas  of 
the  present  new  theology  have  been  recognized 
heretofore,  but  they  now  appear  in  new  connections. 
They  could  not  be  described  as  Calvinistic  or  as 
Arminian,  but  are  embraced  as  instinctive  beliefs 
without  much  regard  to  their  logical  form. 

This  theology  appears  first  as  a  dissent  from 
the  old  theology.  Young  men  of  generous  minds 
and  scholarly  tastes  demur  to  the  teachings  of  the 
standard  theologians,  turn  for  help  to  such  authors  as 
Coleridge  and  Maurice,  and,  without  formulating  any 
scheme  of  their  own,  decline  to  accept  church  creeds, 
— especially  the  more  distinguishing  doctrines  of  those 


294       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

creeds.  It  is  said  of  such  men  by  their  friends  and 
admirers,  that  it  is  simply  impossible  for  them  to  ad- 
here to  the  old  inherited  beliefs.  This  argument, — 
simple  impossibility  of  belief — ^has  been  considered 
very  satisfactory  and  indicative  of  intellect  of  a  high 
order. 

A  doctrine  of  divine  love  has  also  been  preached 
as  being  inconsistent  with  the  severer  doctrines  of  the 
creeds.  God's  love  has  been  illustrated  by  that  of 
a  mother,  a  friend,  a  guardian  with  the  sense  of  long 
established  responsibility,  and  men  have  been  urged 
to  have  no  fear,  no  lack  of  confidence,  because  of  the 
ineffable  tenderness  of  the  Father  in  heaven.  The 
love  on  which  this  teaching  is  based  is  not  that  prin- 
ciple of  benevolence  that  pervades  the  government  of 
God,  but  the  tender  sentiment  that  would,  if  possible, 
forbid  the  existence  of  any  pain  or  distress. 

There  are  also  Christian  experiences  which  are  put 
to  service  in  opposition  to  stern  doctrine.  Christian 
life  is  made  external  activity,  joy  in  the  happiness 
of  others,  the  free  and  genial  discharge  of  duties  without 
self-examination  or  the  questioning  of  one's  motives, 
sympathy,  geniality,  spontaneity  take  the  place  of  law 
and  obedience  to  God.  In  the  progress  towards  the 
position  of  those  who  deny  the  real  authority  of  the 
Bible,  there  is  a  resting  place  where  theologians  com- 
mingle the  authority  of  reason  and  the  Scriptures. 
The  teaching  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  accepted,  but  the 
Bible  is  literature  and  is  to  be  interpreted  with  ref- 
erence to  time  and  place  of  composition,  and  the  mean- 
ing of  each  book  must  be  reached  through  the  char- 
acter of  its   author.      The    Bible    doctrines    must   be 


THE  LATEK  THEOLOGY.  295 

received,  but  we  must  not  hold  to  anything  as  posi- 
tive that  reason  cannot  comprehend,  the  rest  must  be 
rejected  or  relegated  to  the  unknown  and  mysterious. 
We  are  to  accept  the  incarnation,  but  may  explain  it 
to  ourselves  as  similar  to  the  indwelling  of  God  in 
every  man ;  w^e  are  to  accept  the  atonement,  but  need 
not  go  beyond  the  view  that  it  is  the  means  of  re- 
conciliation either  of  God  to  man  or  man  to  God ; 
man  lives  in  a  state  of  probation,  that  belongs  to  the 
very  nature  of  a  remedial  system,  but  we  can  not  fix 
the  close  of  probation,  we  must  suppose  that  it  con- 
tinues till  the  force  of  the  remedial  agencies  is  ex- 
hausted. In  such  ways  revealed  truths  are  brought 
down  to  the  measure  of  the  human  understanding, — 
and  that  by  men  who  would  consider  themselves  as 
holding  substantially  to  the  traditional  theology. 

Those  who  accept  the  conclusions  of  science,  that 
the  human  race  has  existed  on  the  earth  for  countless 
ages,  probably  a  hundred  thousand  years  at  least,  that 
the  progress  of  the  world  is  by  evolution,  and  that 
therefore  original  sin  is  not  by  a  fall  from  innocence 
but  by  inheritance  of  an  animal  nature,  consider  that 
the  old  theology  needs  no  refutation.  To  them  the 
history  of  mankind  is  its  redemption;  redemption 
being  the  tedious  and  painful  elimination  of  inherited 
brutality,  the  slow  accretion  of  one  maxim  of  prudence 
after  another,  of  one  truth  of  morals  after  another, 
accompanied  by  the  hope  of  a  final  complete  theory 
and  practice  of  righteousness.  AYith  this  is  connected 
the  idea  of  the  existence  of  God.  The  ethical  nature 
of  man  has  now  attained  such  a  development,  that 
one  must  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  personal  ruler 


296       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  world,  who  combines  in  his  nature  all  that  is 
holiest  and  best.  He  must,  as  a  wise  and  almighty 
being,  determine  to  effect  the  salvation  of  the  entire 
human  race.  The  doctrine  of  reprobation  is  blas- 
phemous, the  doctrine  of  conditional  immortality  is 
charging  God  with  weakness  and  failure,  salvation  of 
a  part  by  election  is  charging  God  with  monstrous 
immorality,  and  is  what  no  honorable  man  would 
accept.  Salvation  by  the  suffering  of  another  is  ab- 
surd, it  must  be  by  the  agony  and  bloody  sweat  of 
the  one  who  needs  salvation.  Thus  the  doctrines  of 
sin  and  grace  fall  of  themselves.  They  are  discarded 
by  all  thoughtful  men  as  at  war  with  good  morals 
and  all  nobility  of  character.  Not  only  the  doctrines 
laid  down  in  the  creeds  are  swept  away  in  a  moment 
by  the  light  of  science,  but  affiliated  speculations, 
through  which  relief  of  difficulties  has  been  sought, 
such  as  those  pertaining  to  the  limit  of  probation,  the 
substitutionary  value  of  the  God-man,  the  tendency 
to  fixedness  of  character,  are  relegated  to  the  limbo 
of  vanities. 

Contemporaneously  with  the  views  just  noticed, 
but  not  growing  out  of  them,  has  been  the  attempt 
to  make  Christ  the  centre  of  theology.  The  attempt 
to  recast  the  old  theology  so  as  to  make  it  Christo- 
centric,  has  not  been  eminently  successful,  but  those 
who  cut  loose  from  the  old  theology  and  begin  with 
Christ  as  he  appears  in  history,  are  able  to  form  a 
scheme  of  doctrine  which  accords  with  their  idea  of 
his  teaching.  We  are  born  into  a  world  where  Christ 
and  Christianity  are  the  most  potent  facts  that  come 
within  our  experience.      The  direct  method  of  learn- 


THE   LATER  THEOLOGY.  297 

ing  the  truth — the  great  truths  of  religion — is  to  get 
the  mind  of  Christ.  We  must  accept  his  words,  his 
teachings,  his  principles  as  the  truth  itself.  Our 
education  in  theology  is  acquiring  the  consciousness 
of  Christ.  We  must  accept  his  view  of  God,  of 
man,  of  sin,  of  redemption.  A  God  that  is  not 
worthy  of  Christ  is  not  the  true  God.  As  Christ 
came  to  save,  not  destroy,  God  cannot  be  a  destroyer, 
must  be  a  Saviour ;  as  Christ  seeks  the  lost,  God  can- 
not permit  any  to  be  lost;  as  Christ  loves  all  indis- 
criminately, God  can  not  make  an  election  among 
men.  It  makes  no  difference  from  what  source  we 
get  our  idea  of  God,  whether  from  the  Bible  or  creeds, 
or  the  works  of  nature  and  the  facts  of  history,  if  the 
idea  is  not  to  be  foimd  in  the  consciousness  of  Christ, 
it  is  false  and  must  be  rejected.  The  main  charac- 
teristics of  Deity,  as  thus  deduced,  are  Fatherhood, 
unmodified  love,  wisdom  that  permits  no  waste  in 
evolution,  essential  oneness  with  humanity.  Under  a 
Ruler  possessed  of  such  attributes,  man  is  continually 
working  off  the  beast  in  his  nature  and  approaching 
the  divine  likeness. 

The  new  theology  accepts  the  results  of  the  higher 
criticism  of  the  Bible,  but  makes  little  account  of 
them.  It  rejects  the  traditional  view  of  the  Scrip- 
tures on  other  grounds  while  it  accepts  portions  of 
them  as  of  highest  value.  It  sees  that  the  Bible 
teaches  election,  reprobation,  vindicatory  punislnnent, 
and  is  so  far  unchristian  and  to  be  rejected,  but 
it  sees  also,  that  in  many  places  it  speaks  the 
mind  of  Christ  and  is  so  far  to  be  accepted.  It 
recognizes  the    soul-inspiring   influence   of  the   book 


298        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

in  time  past  and  maintains  that  history  establishes 
its  superhuman  value. 

Not  with  apparent  consistency  with  the  doctrine 
of  evolution,  and  not  in  entire  accord  with  the  prom- 
inence given  to  Christ,  the  new  theology  speaks  of 
God  as  Creator,  as  Ruler,  as  responsible  for  the  ex- 
istence and  destiny  of  the  human  race,  as  designing 
certain  ends  to  be  attained  in  his  government.  It 
accords  to  him  such  control  of  affairs  that  the  con- 
duct of  men  flows  on,  act  after  act,  in  fulfilment  of 
a  scheme  of  determinism.  It  is  probably  impossi- 
ble for  an  evolutionist  to  avoid  the  doctrine  of  deter- 
minism, but  the  new  theology  apparently  traces  it  to 
a  divine  source,  and  looks  upon  it  as  directed  to  an 
appointed  result. 

There  is  here  no  attempt  to  delineate  the  entire 
scheme  of  the  new  theology, — in  fact,  it  does  not 
claim  to  be  a  completed  scheme — but  the  doctrines 
already  brought  to  view  are  sufficient  to  show  its  na- 
ture and  tendency.  Its  peculiarity  is  mostly  in  its 
combinations.  It  seems  to  be  Augustinian  in  its 
view  of  God  as  sovereign,  yet  it  wholly  denies  the 
doctrine  of  grace.  It  accepts  the  Pelagian  view  of 
human  works,  and  might  perhaps  accept  its  use  of 
the  term  grace,  but  would  not  consider  the  term  as 
of  any  value.  This  scheme  does  not  require  any 
historical  illustrations,  it  stands  out  by  itself  as  a  mere 
scheme  of  natural  reason.  It  is  simply  man's  read- 
ing of  the  divine  in  nature.  Its  views  of  God  are 
a  priori,  its  view  of  his  work  is  a  priori.  Its  teach- 
ing is,  God  will  do  this  and  that,  of  course  he  will, 
no    one    can   think   otherwise.      He   will    bring   the 


THE  LATEK    THEOLOGY.  299 

world  to  such  and  such  results,  he  must  do  it,  for 
nothing  else  would  be  right.  Its  view  of  Christ  is 
no  exception  to  this  statement,  for  it  looks  upon  him 
as  merely  a  product  of  nature,  one  of  the  facts  that 
confront  us  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

The  question  before  us  is  this :  is  the  new  theology 
Edwardean?  It  is  well  known  that  there  has  been 
a  tendency  of  late  to  claim  Edwards  as  the  leader  of 
the  liberals  in  theology.  It  has  been  said,  perhaps 
not  with  absolute  seriousness,  that  if  he  were  now 
living  he  would  accept  the  doctrine  of  future  proba- 
tion. It  has  been  said,  in  all  seriousness,  that  he  is 
the  real  father  of  New  England  transcendentalism. 
J.  McLeod  Campbell  refers  to  him  in  his  treatise  on 
the  atonement,  and  attempts  to  find  support  in  the 
teachings  of  the  great  American  theologian.  F.  D. 
Maurice  commends  him  to  American  thinkers  as 
affording  the  starting  point  for  their  speculations. 
He  says  of  him : 

"In  his  own  country  he  retains  and  always  must 
retain  a  great  power.  We  should  imagine  that  all 
American  theology  and  philosophy,  whatever  changes 
it  may  undergo,  with  whatever  foreign  elements  it 
may  be  associated,  must  be  cast  in  his  mould.  New 
En^landers  who  try  to  substitute  Berkeley,  or  Butler, 
or  Malebranche,  or  Cardillac,  or  Kant,  or  Hegel,  for 
Edwards,  or  to  form  their  minds  upon  any  of  them, 
must  be  forcing  themselves  into  an  unnatural  position, 
and  must  suffer  from  the  effort.^' ^ 

Dr.  G.  A.  Gordon,  in  his  "Christ  of  To-Day,'^  says  : 

"However  insignificant,  the  present  discussion  is 
a  true  continuation  of  the  theological  tradition  which 

I.    Quoted  by  Prof.  A.  V.  G.  Allen.    Life  of  Edwards,  p.  387. 


300       NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

dates  from  our    greatest    theologian,    Jonathan    Ed- 
wards." 1 

The  Unitarians  also  are  not  without  hope  of  sup- 
port from  the  same  source  and  have  long  been  call- 
ing upon  the  custodian  of  his  manuscripts  for  the 
publication  of  the  treatise  on  the  trinity. 

It  is  difficult  to  define  Edwardeanism,  or  to  give 
an  orderly  arrangement  to  its  contents.  Edwards' 
thoughts  were  so  superabundant  and  suggested  from 
so  many  sources  that  their  connection  and  consistency 
are  not  always  obvious.  He  was  a  thorough  ideal- 
ist, but  was  obliged  to  use  language  to  be  interpreted 
in  accord  with  a  different  philosophy,  so  that  his 
meaning  is  not  always  clear.  If  he  had  written  less 
and  re- written  more,  he  would  perhaps  have  adjusted 
his  thoughts  more  perfectly  to  the  apprehension  of 
his  readers.  He  seems  to  have  written  a  good  deal 
for  his  o^vn  private  use.  Still  the  spirit  of  his  writ- 
ings may  be  pretty  clearly  apprehended.  With  him 
God  was  all  in  all,  was  the  alpha  and  omega,  all 
things  were  of  him  and  to  him.  This  fundamental 
principle  is  announced  in  many  places,  but  more  dis- 
tinctly than  elsewhere  in  his  treatise  on  the  "  Last 
End  of  God  in  Creation."  God  is  the  sum  of  being 
and  all  things  must  be  made  for  him.  He  creates 
that  he  may  see  himself  reflected  in  the  creature,  all 
things  go  from  him  and  return  to  him,  emanation  is 
for  the  sake  of  remanation.  Whatever  subordinate 
ends  may  be  served  by  the  processes  of  nature,  the  last 
end  of  God's  work  is  his  own  glory.  Edwards'  won- 
derful visions,  in  which  he  seemed  to  be  carried  away 

1.    Christ  of  To-Day,  p.  8. 


THE  LATER   THEOLOGY.  301 

by  a  divine  rapture  confirmed  him  in  this  view. 
Though  he  portrayed  the  sufferings  of  those  finally 
condemned  in  appalling  terms,  he  considered  that  the 
woes  of  the  lost  would  be  no  ground  of  suffering  to 
the  saints  in  glory,  because  their  complete  absorption 
in  the  displays  of  the  divine  majesty  would  fully  oc- 
cupy their  attention.  This  sentiment,  which  took  so 
strong  a  hold  of  his  feelings,  he  argued  in  carefully 
considered  appeals  to  the  intellect  in  his  treatise  on 
virtue,  and  made  it  the  foundation  of  all  his  theolo- 
gical thinking. 

He  considered  that  human  sinfulness  consists 
mainly  in  original  sin.  This  he  looked  upon  as  due 
to  the  fall  for  which  men  are  justly  held  responsible. 
He  had  no  thought  of  identifying  man's  corruption 
with  an  inherited  animal  nature,  it  would,  to  his 
mind,  have  relieved  man  substantially  of  his  guilt  to 
have  made  his  sin  simply  a  too  facile  yielding  to  the 
animal  impulses. 

He  held  that  the  renewal  of  men  is  by  a  reversal 
of  their  natural  tendencies,  not  by  development  through 
them.  He  was  a  thorough  believer  in  grace  accord- 
ing to  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  it,  he  considered 
it  a  divine  scheme,  an  organized  energy  by  which  the 
powers  of  sin  are  counteracted  and  overcome.  He 
considered  that  Christian  life  consists  in  holy  affect- 
ions which  are  directly  implanted  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

He  did  not  believe  that  the  developments  of  sin 
result  finally  in  holiness,  but  that  sin  indulged  leads 
to  deeper  sin,  that  evil  men  wax  worse  and  worse. 
He  has  left  no  sermons  on  the  mellowing  influence 
of  sin,  but  taught  that  God  permits  the  wicked  to  fill 


302  NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

the  measure  of  their  guilt,  and  that  then  wrath  comes 
upon  them  to  the  uttermost.  He  did  not  even  be- 
lieve that  moral  reforms  and  the  conscientious  dis- 
charge of  duties  lead  to  a  holy  life,  but  classed  reason 
and  conscience  with  the  other  human  faculties  as 
corrupt,  as  incompetent  to  a  discernment  of  the  real 
nature  of  righteousness,  or  to  act  as  guides  in  a 
virtuous  life. 

^^He  knows  nothing  of  a  gradual  maturing  of  the 
will  under  a  divine  education.  There  is  no  such 
thing  with  him  as  a  quiet,  unconscious  growth  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.^^  ^ 

A  comparison  of  these  two  schemes  will  show  that 
one  of  them  could  not  possibly  be  developed  from 
the  other.  The  new  theology  resembles  that  of 
Edwards  in  its  view  of  God  as  the  primal  source  of 
power,  as  the  alphay  but  there  the  similarity  ceases, 
its  omega  is  quite  different  from  that  of  the  theology 
of  Edwards.  The  new  system  has  much  to  say  of 
the  ethical  nature  of  Deity,  of  humanity  as  constituent 
of  Deity,  and  seems  to  make  the  end  of  creation  the 
glorification  of  humanity. 

The  new  theology  makes  salvation  nobility  of  char- 
acter. The  development  of  the  divine  in  man,  of 
the  primal  germ  of  humanity,  so  as  to  give  it  power 
over  the  animal  nature,  is  restoration,  redemption,  re- 
generation, and  is  attained  through  travail  and  sor- 
row, can  not  be  a  simple  gift  of  God.  The  new 
theology  knows  nothing  of  grace  in  the  orthodox 
sense  of  the  word,  it   knows    nothing   of  pardon   of 

1.    Allen's  Life  of  Edwards,  p.  148. 


THE  LATER   THEOLOGY.  303 

sin,  remission  of  penalty,  justification  through  the  right- 
eousness of  another,  its  salvation  is  improvement 
through  discipline.  In  spirit  and  doctrine  this  scheme 
is  totally  at  war  with  Edwardeanism. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  doctrine  of  evo- 
lution would  have  had  a  powerful  fascination  for 
Edwards'  mind,  and  his  view  of  direct  divine  com- 
munication with  the  soul  opens  the  way  to  the  modern 
doctrine  of  inspiration,  but  he  very  pointedly  dis- 
tinguished inspiration  from  such  divine  converse. 

The  question  might  be  asked,  whether  Edwards 
unconsciously  uttered  sentiments  premonitory  of  com- 
ing changes.  There  are  those  who  are  fond  of  find- 
ing in  great  men  the  prophets  of  the  age,  the  seers 
or  diviners  who  apprehend  in  advance  the  issues 
which  the  age  is  working  out.  There  were  reformers 
before  the  Reformation.  There  were  Puritans  and 
Separatists  who  claimed  the  rights  of  Englishmen 
before  the  era  of  toleration.  There  were  those  who 
predicted  the  abolition  of  American  slavery  before 
the  Civil  War.  Did  Edwards  in  any  way  give 
intimation  of  the  coming  trend  of  thought  in  any 
department  of  speculation  ?  His  mind  seems  to  have 
been  constructed  in  such  alliance  with  nature,  that  he 
did  apprehend  the  openings  for  scientific  progress, 
and  might  have  stood  by  the  side  of  Huyghens  and 
Newton,  but  he  preferred  to  turn  his  thoughts  in  a 
different  direction.  What  was  his  trend  in  his  chosen 
career?  He  has  left  no  elaborate  scheme  of  philos- 
ophy, but  his  views  on  many  points  have  been  clearly 
expresssed  and  are  in  accord  with  those  of  some  of 
his  contemporaries,  and  are  deducible  from  the  teach- 


304        NEW  ENGLAND  THEOLOGY. 

ings  of  his  predecessors.  His  views  of  sin  and  re- 
demption, of  grace  manifested  in  calling  and  regen- 
eration, were  eminently  conservative  and  deny  before- 
hand the  main  positions  of  the  new  theology.  If  he 
could  have  developed  his  history  of  the  scheme  of 
redemption  and  have  given  theology  a  new  form,  it 
may  be  that  he  would  have  anticipated  the  Hegelian 
philosophy  of  history,  but  his  published  works  give 
no  evidence  of  it.  On  the  whole,  Edwards'  mission 
seems  to  have  been  to  serve  his  own  generation,  and 
thereby  the  coming  generations ;  to  oppose  Arminian- 
ism,  to  assert  the  prevalence  of  the  Divine  Will,  and 
to  promote  vital  godliness  in  the  churches. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE. 


It  is  the  purpose  of  the  following  table  to  bring 
together  and  set  in  chronological  order  the  important 
events  in  the  development  of  the  New  England 
Theology.  A  few  extraneous  events  are  also  noticed 
in  order  to  give  the  historical  setting  of  the  move- 
ment. 

1703.  Jonathan  Edwards  born. 

1704.  First  American  newspaper  published  at  Boston. 
1704.  Deerfield  destroyed  in  Queen  Anne's  war. 
1708.  Saybrook  Platform  formulated. 

1710.  Port  Royal,  Nova  Scotia,  captured. 

1719.  Edwards  graduated  from  Yale  College. 

1723.  Increase  Mather  died. 

1727.  Edwards  ordained  at  Northampton. 

1728.  Cotton  Mather  died. 

1729.  Solomon  Stoddard  died. 

Tavo  dominant  forces  manifested  themselves  in  the 
development  of  New  England  Theology ;  the  attempt 
to  establish  Calvinism  and  the  attempt  to  prove 
benevolence  to  be  the  sum  of  Virtue.  These  two 
aims  pervade  the  entire  century  of  its  development, 
but  the  first  was  prominent  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the   century,  or   from   1730   to   1760,  the   second   in 


306  CHRONOLOGICAL   TABLE. 

the  remainder  of  the  century,  from  1760  to  1830. 
These  periods  may  be  designated  the  Calvinistic  or 
Anti-Arminian  Period  and  the  Benevolence  Period. 

1731.  Edwards  preached  in  Boston  on  ^^  Man's 
Dependence.'^ 

1735.  Revival  at  Northampton,  after  and  with  Cal- 
vinistic preaching. 

1738.  Edwards'  sermons  on  Justification  published, 
opposition  aroused. 

1740.     Whitefield  preached  in  New  England. 

1740.  The  Great  Awakening. 

1741.  Edwards  on  the  Marks  of  a  True  Revival. 

1742.  Edwards'  Thoughts  on  the   Revival  in  New 

England. 

1743.  Chauncy's  Thoughts  on  the  state  of  Religion 

in  New  England. 
1744-49.     King   George's   War;   capture    of  Louis- 
burg,  1745. 

1744.  Mayhew,   Experience,   published  "Grace  De- 

fended." 
1746.     Edwards  on  the  Affections  published. 
1749.     Briant's    sermon    commending   moral   virtues 

published. 

1749.  Edwards  on  Qualifications  for  full  Communion. 

1750.  Bellamy's  "True  Religion  Delineated." 

1751.  Edwards  removes  to  Stockbridge. 

1752.  Samuel  Niles  replied  to  Briant. 

1754.  Edwards  on  the  "  Will." 

1755.  Mayhew,  Jonathan,  sermons  published. 
1756-63.     French  and  Indian  (Seven  Years')  war. 

1757.  Webster,  Samuel,  against  Original  Sin. 

1758.  Death  of  Edwards,  at  Princeton,  N.  J. 
1758.     Edwards'  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 

1758.  Bellamy's  Wisdom  of  God  in  the  Permission 

of  Sin. 

1759.  Hopkins'  Wisdom  of  God  in  the  Permission 

of  Sin. 


CHRONOLOGICAL    TABLE.  307 

The  last  two  works  on  the  permission  of  sin, 
form  a  fit  transition  from  the  Anti-Arminian  to 
the  Benevolence  Period.  The  permission  of  sin 
consistent  with  the  divine  benevolence. 


1759.     Quebec  taken  by  Wolfe. 

1761.  May  hew,  Jonathan,  sermons  on  Entering  at 
the  Strait  Gate. 

1763.  Bellamy.  A  Blow  at  the  Root  of  Antino- 
mianism. 

1765.     The  Stamp  Act. 

1765.  Hopkins'  Inquiry  into  the  Promises  of  the 
Gospel.      Reply  to  May  hew. 

1765.  Edwards  on  Virtue  and  God's  End  in  Crea- 
tion published  by  Hopkins. 

1767.  Mills,  Rev.  Jedidiah.  State  of  the  Unre- 
generate. 

1767.  Hemmenway,    Rev.    Moses.    Encouragements 

of  the  Impenitent. 

1768.  Hopkins.     Sermon  on  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 

1769.  Hopkins.       Character    of   the    Unregenerate. 

Reply  to  Mills. 
1769.     Bellamy.     Dialogue  on  the  Half-way  Covenant. 
1769.     Smalley.     Natural  and  Moral  Ability. 

1769.  Hart,   Rev.    William.     Dialogue,    opposed  to 

the  New  Divinity. 

1770.  The  Boston  Massacre. 

1770.     Hopkins.     Reply  to  Hart's  Dialogue. 

1770.  Murray,    Rev.    John,    Universalist    preacher, 

came  from  England. 
1770  and  1773.     Dana,    Rev.   James.      Examination 
of  Edwards  on  the  "Will." 

1771.  Hart.     Remarks  on  Edwards   on  Virtue. 

1772.  West,  Rev.  Stephen,  D.D.     Moral  Agency. 

1772.  Hemmenway.     Criticism   of   Hopkins     Reply 

to  Mills. 

1773.  Tea  thrown  overboard  in  Boston  Harbor. 


308  CHEONOLOGICAL    TABLE. 

1773.  Hopkins.      Nature  of  True  Holiness.     Reply 

to  Hemmenway  and  others. 

1774.  Hemmenway.     Reply  to  Hopkins. 

Here  the  strictly  Hopkinsian  discussions  closed, 
but  were,  in  part,  renewed  under  the  name  of  Tay- 
lorism  after  1820.  After  the  Revolutionary  War 
the  Divine  Benevolence  as  manifested  in  the  pardon 
of  sin,  and  more  indirectly  in  penalty,  came  under 
discussion. 

1775.  Bunker  Hill. 

1776.  Independence. 

1777.  Surrender  of  Burgoyne. 
1781.  Surrender  of  Cornwallis. 

1782  and  1784     Chauncy.     Salvation  of  All  Men. 
1783.     Emmons.     Sermon  against  Universalism. 
1783.     Hopkins.     The  Future  State  of  the  Impenitent. 
1785.     Edwards,  Jonathan,  D.D.     The  Atonement. 

1785.  West.     The  Atonement. 

1786.  Smalley.     Justification. 

1787.  The  Constitutional  Convention. 
1789.     Administration  of  Washington  begins. 
1789.     Edwards.     The  Salvation  of  All  Men  Exam- 
ined. 

1789.     Methodist  preaching  in  New  Haven,  Conn. 

1792  to  1795.  Discussion  of  Terms  of  Communion, 
Hemmenway  and  Emmons. 

1793.     Hopkins'  System  of  Divinity. 

1797.     Edwards.     Liberty  and   Necessity. 

1803  and  1814.     Smalley.     Doctrinal  sermons. 

1805.  Rev.  Henry  Ware  elected  Professor  of  Divin- 
ity at  Harvard. 

1805.  Hopkins'  (posthumously  published)  Dialogue 
between  Calvinist  and  Semi-Calvinist. 

1808.     Andover  Seminary  founded. 

1810.     American  Board  founded. 


CHRONOLOGICAL   TABLE.  309 

The    Unitarian    discussions    from    1810    to    1824 
affected  New  England  Theology  only  indirectly. 

1819.     Channing's  Baltimore  Sermon. 

1821.  Goodrich,  Prof.     Lecture  on  Original  Sin. 

1822.  Taylor,  Rev.   N.  W.,  Professor  of  Theology 

at  New  Haven. 

1826.  Fitch,  Prof.,  preached  '^  Sin  Transgression  of 

Known  Law.'' 

1827.  Spring,  Gardiner,  D.  D.     Means  of  Regenera- 

tion. 

1828.  Taylor.     Concio  ad  Clerum.  ^ 

1829.  Spring's  Means  of  Regeneration  reviewed. 

1829.  Tylers  Strictures  on  the  review. 

1830.  Taylor  and  Tyler  discussion. 
1830.  Woods'  letter  to  Dr.  Taylor. 
1832.  Hawes'  letter  to  Dr.  Taylor. 
1832.  Taylor  and  Tyler  discussion. 

1834.     Theological  Institute  of  Connecticut  founded. 

1834.     Oberlin  College  founded. 

1837.     Presbyterian    Church    divided   into    Old    and 

New  School. 
1837,     Tyler's  letters  on  New  England  Arminianism. 


INDEX 


Ability.  Edwards  on,  64,  113  ; 
equal  to  obligation,  99 ;  Small- 
ey  on,  115  ;     Finney  on,  287. 

Anti-trinitarianism  and  liberal 
theology,  24. 

Andover  Seminary  founded,  250. 
View  of  virtue,  144. 

Arminianism.  Provokes  discus- 
sion, 3,  35  ;  early  meaning  of, 
31 ;  increasing  prevalence  of, 
45. 

Atonement,  221  ;  Pynclion's 
treatise,  221  ;  the  central  doc- 
trine, 224  ;  satisfaction  theory, 
225;  objections  to  satisfaction 
theory,  227  ;  genesis  of  New 
England  theory,  228  ;  New 
England  theory,  230;  Christ 
not  punished,  233 ;  satisfies 
general,  not  distributive  justice, 
234  ;  epithets  applied  to  New 
England  theory,  236  ;  esti- 
mate of  this  theory,  237  ;  atone- 
ment not  for  holy  beings,  238; 
this  theory  not  a  development, 
239  ;  the  moral  influence 
theory,  242 ;  criticisms  by 
Bushnell,  243  ;  Bushnell's 
theory,  244. 

Bellamy,  notice  of,  72  ;  on  per- 
mission of  sin,  81  ;  on  sin,  94. 
on  justification,  156  ;  no 
graceless  covenant,  196. 


Biblical  Kepertory.  Reference 
to  Hopkinsianism,  173. 

Burge  on  the  atonement,  235,241. 

Burton,  Rev.  Asa,  on  taste,  107; 
on  the  exercise  scheme,  107  ; 
a  utilitarian,  143. 

Bushnell,  Rev.  Horace,  on  justi- 
fication, 165  ;  on  atonement, 
242  ;  criticises  old  theories, 
243;  theory  of  atonement,  244; 
rejects  former  moral  theories, 
247. 

Calvinists.  Their  differences, 
4,  15  ;  issue  with  the  Armi- 
nians,  63. 

Calvinism  accepted  at  first,  29^; 
opposed  early,  29,  63  ;  Mod- 
erate differs  from  Hopkinsian- 
ism on  the  use  of  means,  184. 
See  Moderate  Calvinism. 

Campbell,  J.  McLeod,  reference 
to  Edwards,  299. 

Chal  mers.  Estimate  of  Edwards, 
128. 

Channing.  Estimate  of  Hopkins, 
77. 

Chauncy,  Rev.  Charles,  D.  D., 
on  the  revival  of  1740,  39, 

Christo-centric  theology,  296. 

Councils  of  1657  and  1662,  21. 

Depravity  of  infants,  100,  104. 
Not  from  Adam,  104.  Total, 
101. 


INDEX. 


311 


Dwight,  President,  on  regenera- 
tion, 108.     Utilitarian,  143. 

Edwards,  President  Jonathan. 
Early  views,  33  ;  character 
of,  46,  53,  303  ;  on  full  com- 
munion, 51 ;  on  the  Infinite 
Will,  56 ;  instructions  to  the 
impenitent,  35,  50  ;  defence  of 
the  revival  of  1740,  38 ;  man 
for  the  times,  47 ;  practical 
views,  49;  the  "Humble  In- 
quiry," 52  ;  Theism,  54  ;  idea 
of  creation,  55;  virtue  and  be- 
nevolence, 57  ;  virtue  accord 
with  the  nature  of  things,  58  ; 
love  of  being,  not  of  excellence, 
the  basis  of  virtue,  59  ;  virtue 
known  by  intuition,  60  ;  on  the 
will,  61 ;  on  ability,  64 ;  guilt 
in  the  nature  of  an  act,  not  in 
the  cause,  65 ;  on  original  sin, 
65  ;  on  human  sinfulness,  67  ; 
men  constituted  one  with 
Adam,  68  ;  on  justification,  152; 
modified  view  of  justification, 
153;  on  self-love,  203  ;  separ- 
ated guilt  from  freedom,  65  ; 
spirit  of  his  theology,  300 ;  not 
a  prophet  of  latest  theology, 
303. 

Edwards,  Dr.  Jonathan,  on  laxity 
of  doctrine,  61 ;  utilitarian  in 
morals,  143 ;  on  the  atonement, 
228,  231. 

Emmons,  notice  of.  111 ;  on  per- 
mission of  sin,  87  ;  on  sin,  94  ; 
on  sin  in  childhood,  101,  103  ; 
on  justification,  160  ;  on  Adam's 
sin,  109;  on  the  atonement, 
232  ;  on  perfection,  286. 

Emmonsism.  A  method  of  ap- 
prehending doctrine,  11,  108; 
traced  to  Hopkins,  110. 

Emlyn,  Thomas,  24. 

England,  Old,  influence  on  New, 
24 ;  anti-trinitarian  theolo- 
gians, 24. 


Exercise  scheme.  Original  sin 
explained  by,  104;  notice  of, 
105. 

Fairchild,  President,  on  justifi- 
cation, 164  ;  on  the  will,  289. 

Finney,  President,  on  justifica- 
tion, 164;  on  degrees  of  vice, 
195  ;  appointment  at  Oberlin, 
275  ;  on  perfection,  276 ;  on 
ability,  287 ;  criticism  of  Ed- 
wards, 288  ;  on  regeneration, 
289. 

Fisher,  Prof.  G.  P.,  on  Taylor's 
doctrine  of  the  selfish  princi- 
ple, 95,  259. 

Fitch,  Prof.  Sermons,  and  de- 
fence of,  254;  article  by,  264. 

Gordon,  Dr.  G.  A.,  quotation 
from,  299. 

Griffin,  on  the  atonement,  241. 

Hall,  Robert,  estimate  of  Ed- 
wards, 128. 

Half-way  covenant,  21,  52. 

Hart,  Eev.  William,  78  ;  criticism 
of  Hopkins,  175,  178. 

Hawes,  Rev.  Dr.,  letter  to  Dr. 
Taylor,  256. 

Hemmenway,  notice  of,  170  ;  ser- 
mon on  duties  of  the  unregen- 
erate,  179  ;  on  the  power  of  the 
unregenerate,  182 ;  on  next 
power,  183  ;  the  main  ques- 
tion, 185  ;  argument  for  use  of 
means,  186  ;  on  self-love,  202  ; 
on  the  Gordian  knot  in  theol- 
ogy, 204. 

Hodge,  Prof.  A.  A.,  on  satisfac- 
tion, 151;  on  atonement,  238. 

Hodge,  Dr.  Charles,  the  evil  of 
an  act  in  its  nature,  126  ;  on 
sin  as  means  of  the  greatest 
good,  80. 

Holiness,  Hopkins'  treatise  on, 
133. 

Hooker,  Kev.  Thomas,  on  entire 
submission,  147;  on  atone- 
ment, 228. 


312 


INDEX. 


Hopkins,  pastor  in  troublous 
times,  13  ;  notice  of,  74  ;  supra- 
lapsarian,  83  ;  on  the  permis- 
sion of  sin,  83  ;  sin  due  to  the 
divine  perfections,  83;  sin 
means  of  the  highest  good,  84  ; 
sin  self-love,  93  ;  on  holiness, 
133;  interpretation  of  Scripture 
term  love,  138  ;  on  willingness 
to  be  damned,  146  ;  on  justifi- 
cation, 158;  as  a  controversial- 
ist, 173  ;  reply  to  May  hew, 
176  ;  reply  to  Hemmenway, 
191  ;  Mayhew's  impenitent 
seeker  non-existent,  196  ;  sin- 
ners under  conviction  more 
sinful,  197;  no  promises  to  the 
impenitent,  199  ;  reply  to  Mills, 
200  ;  no  mystery  in  sinners 
being  required  to  repent,  204  ; 
the  proper  self-love  his  most 
original  doctrine,  204  ;  preach 
immediate  repentance,  208  ; 
repentance  only  through  the 
spirit,  209  ;  why  commend 
means,  210 ;  on  perfection, 
287. 

Hopkinsianism,  peculiarities  of, 
169  ;  rise  of  the  term,  178  ;  on 
moral  duties,  193  ;  on  the  use 
of  means,  194  ;  guilt  mainly 
from  opposition  to  God,  201  ; 
sinners  comply  with  no  com- 
mand of  God,  201  ;  replies  to 
Hemmenway's  questions,  205  ; 
favorable  to  revivals,  213; 
favorable  tendencies,  215  ;  un- 
favorable tendencies,  216. 

Ide,  Dr.  Jacob,  on  Emmons, 
109. 

Inability,  Edwards  on,  64;  Small- 
ey  on,  114,  122;  Treadwell 
makes  physical,  123  ;  Finney 
on,  288. 

Imputation,  Edwards  on,  1 52. 

Lav^^rence,  Prof.  E.  A.,  on  sin, 
96. 


Lord's  Supper  as  a  converting 
ordinance,  21. 

Love  or  Benevolence,  virtue  ab- 
solute benevolence,  57,  133  ; 
the  sum  of  virtue,  135  ;  but 
must  be  disinterested,  136; 
disinterested  benevolence  mod- 
ified, 137 ;  Scripture  argu- 
ment concerning,  138  ;  scheme 
allied  to  utilitarianism,  140  ; 
extreme  application  of,  146  ; 
as  held  by  the  present  new 
divinity,  294. 

Mahan,  Rev.  Asa,  appointment 
at  Oberlin,  275 ;  on  perfec- 
tion, 277. 

Massachusetts  colony,  excludes 
uncongenial  members,  16. 

Maurice,  F.  D.,  reference  to  Ed- 
wards, 299. 

Mayhew,  Rev.  Jonathan,  on 
means  of  grace,  26,  176. 

Mills,  Rev.  Jedidiah,  on  the 
means  of  grace,  172  ;  criticises 
Hopkins,  177. 

Moderate  Calvinism.  View  of 
the  power  of  the  unregenerate, 
180  ;  on  next  power,  182  ; 
psychology  of  its  advocates, 
182 ;  issue  with  Hopkinsian- 
ism, 185  ;  arguments  for,  186. 

Nature,  study  of  tends  to  skep- 
ticism, 24. 

New  Divinity,  phases  to  be 
traced,  3  ;  its  beginnings,  3  ; 
of  popular  interest,  4.  See 
New  England  Theology. 

New  Divinity,  the  modern,  293  ; 
discards  old  creeds,  294  ;  esti- 
mate of  the  Bible,  297  ;  God 
known  through  Christ,  297 ; 
compared  with  Edwardeanism, 
299 ;  doctrine  of  salvation, 
302. 

New  England  Theology,  what, 
9  ;  four  special  phases  of,  10; 
not  popular  at  first,    11  ;  pe- 


INDEX. 


313 


riods  of  earnest  debate,  12  ;  ac- 
cords with  the  spirit  of  the  age, 
12  ;  individuality  of  its  adher- 
ents, 13  ;  consistent  Calvinism, 
1 5  ;  division  of  parties,  1 4  ; 
rise  of,  32,  48 ;  accepts  Ed- 
wards' view  of  divine  constitu- 
tion, 69 ;  influence  in  Great 
Britain,  127;  doctrine  of  entire 
submission,  146;  conflict  with 
Moderate  Calvinism,  171,  and 
argument  against,  195. 

New  England  Morals,  of  high 
grade  at  first,  1 7  ;  relaxed,  1 6  ; 
causes  of  deterioration,  1 8  ;  de- 
cline of  morals  recognized,  19  ; 
remedies  proposed,  21  ;  laxity 
in  doctrine,  22,  45. 

New  Haven  Theology,  items  of 
discussion,  254 ;  its  diver- 
gences, 259  ;  view  of  regenera- 
tion, 268. 

Old  Lights  and  New  Lights,  an- 
tagonism of  in  the  great  revi- 
val, 32-45. 

Olmsted,  Prof. ,  reference  to  Gov. 
Tread  well,  124. 

Original  Sin,  John  Taylor  on,  23; 
Edwards  on,  68  ;  New  England 
view,  102. 

Park,  Prof.  E.  A.,  on  beginning 
of  New  England  Theology,  33  ; 
on  the  active  nature  of  sin,  95, 
114;  on  Hopkins  as  a  contro- 
versialist, 175. 

Pelagianism,  65,  66. 

Perfectionism,  5,  276. 

Philosophers  and  Deists  of  the 
19th  century,  23. 

Porter,  Rev.  Dr.,  on  Smalley  and 
Treadwell  controversy,  125. 

Power  to  the  contrary,  126. 

Presbytery  of  Troy  on  perfection- 
ism, 283. 

Presbytery  of  Cleveland  on  per- 
fectionism, 284. 


Promises,  none  to  the  impenitent, 
199. 

Pynchon,  William,  on  the  atone- 
ment, 221. 

Regeneration,  New  Haven 
view,  268  ;  Finney's  view,  289. 

Responsibility,  112  ;  Smalley  on, 

113,  and  causality,  125. 
Revival  of  1735,  34  ;  of  1740, 
36  ;  commended  by  Edwards, 
38 ;  excesses  of,  39  ;  Chaun- 
cy's  estimate  of,  40  ;  various 
estimates,  41  ;  excesses  from 
earlier  sources,  43  ;  fixed  party 
lines,  43. 

Ryland,  Rev.  John,  on  ability 
and  inability,  113. 

Shepard,  Rev.  Thomas,  on  en- 
tire submission,  147. 

Sin,  New  England  Doctrine  ;  Di- 
vine permission  of,  78  ;  New 
England  view  opposed,  80 ; 
Bellamy  on  permission  of,  81  ; 
God's  purpose  beyond  permis- 
sion, Hopkins,  83 ;  promotes 
the  highest  good,  84 ;  product 
of  God's  wisdom  and  holiness, 
84  ;  God  not  under  obligation 
to  restrain  from,  85 ;  West's 
supralapsarian  view,  86  ;  defi- 
nition of,  9 1  ;  as  transgression, 
91;  as  selfishness,  93  ;  as  in- 
herent tendency,  95  ;  axioms 
concerning,"  98  ;  accepted  facts, 
100  ;  total  depravity,  101  ; 
original,  102  ;  whether  means 
of  greatest  good,  88,  267._ 

Smalley,  14 ;  on  responsibility, 
113  ;  notice  of,  120  ;  on  blame- 
worthiness, 121  ;  reply  to  Gov. 
Treadwell,  122 ;  on  justifica- 
tion, 158. 

Stearns,  Prof.  Lewis  F.,  on  the 
permission  of  sin,  90. 

Stiles.  Pres,  Ezra,  76. 

Stoddard,  Rev.  Solomon  22. 


314 


INDEX. 


Taste  Scheme,  107,  183. 

Taylor,  John,  of  Norwich,  27. 

Taylor,  Dr.  N.  W.,  on  permission 
of  sin,  94  ;  denied  the  sinfulness 
of  infants,  102  ;  on  justifica- 
tion, 162;  notice  of,  252; 
axiomatic  truths,  257  ;  differs 
from  Edwards  on  choice,  258  ; 
on  depravity  and  sin,  259  ;  on 
sin  as  means  of  the  greatest 
good,  261  ;  concio  ad  clerum, 
255,  262 ;  on  the  preventabil- 
ity  of  sin,  262  ;  on  regenera- 
tion, 268  ;  on  the  use  of  means, 
269. 

Taylorism,  11. 

Treadwell,  Gov.,  supralapsarian, 
87  ;  on  regeneration,  123. 

Trumbull,  Bev.  Benjamin,  D.D., 
32. 

Tyler,  Kev.  Bennet,  D.D.,on  sin, 
97 ;  discussion  with  Taylor, 
256 ;  letters  on  Taylorism, 
257 ;  on  Taylor's  view  of  re- 
generation, 273. 

Unitarianism,  rise  of,  250. 
Utilitarianism,  140. 

Virtue,  Edwards'  view,  56,  132  ; 
New    England    view    contro- 


verted, 60  ;  idea  of,  131 ;  term 
qualified  by  Edwards  and  Hop- 
kins, 132;  comprised  in  love 
or  benevolence,  135 ;  Andover 
view,  144. 

Walker,  Kev.  G.  L.,  on  the 
Hopkinsian  revival  period,  214. 

Watson,  includes  redemption  in 
theodicy,  89. 

Watts,  24. 

West,  Rev.  Stephen,  D.D.,  on  the 
permission  of  sin,  85  ;  virtue 
of  deeds  in  their  nature  not  in 
their  cause,  99,  125  ;  sermons 
on  atonement,  228. 

Whiston,  William,  26. 

Whitby,  Daniel,  28  ;  on  freedom 
of  will,  63. 

Whitefield  visits  New  England, 
37  ;  effect  of  his  preaching,  38. 

Woods,  Dr.  Leonard,  God  prefers 
sin  where  it  occurs,  88  ;  on  for- 
giveness, 151 ;  on  atonement, 
231 ;  notice  of,  251 ;  reply  to 
Taylor  on  the  preventability  of 
sin,  264 ;  on  sin  as  the  means 
of  the  greatest  good,  266  ;  on 
perfectionism,  282. 


DATE  DUE 


litmm^^^i^'^' 


GAYLORD 


PRINTED  INU.S.A. 


Princeton  Theological  bemin 


1012  01037  8349 


